Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

The applicant filed human rights applications against the corporate respondent and several individual respondents.

The corporate respondent advised that it was subject to an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, which stayed proceedings against it.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to pursue the applications and, if so, to provide submissions on the effect of the stay and whether he had sought to lift it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The corporate respondent subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The applicant sought to continue the application against the personal respondents only.

The Tribunal held that because the allegations against the personal respondents related solely to their roles as supervisory employees of the corporate respondent, proceeding against them would constitute a proceeding in respect of the bankrupt entity's business.

As no leave of the Court or consent of the Receiver had been obtained, the application was dismissed pursuant to the stay provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant failed to respond to an interim decision directing her to advise whether she intended to continue her application.

The corporate respondent had previously initiated restructuring under the Companies' Creditors' Arrangement Act, resulting in a stay of proceedings and the sale of substantially all its assets.

As the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a restaurant and its owner.

The respondents' response named several additional individuals as respondents.

The owner subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision removing the additional individuals as respondents because there were no allegations against them in the pleadings.

The Tribunal also stayed the proceedings against the restaurant and its owner pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint against his former employer, which was later referred to the Tribunal by the Commission.

Prior to the referral, the corporate respondent obtained protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed all proceedings against it.

The corporate respondent subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal found that the referral of the complaint appeared to violate the CCAA stay of proceedings, as there was no evidence that the consent of the Monitor or leave of the Court was obtained.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on why the complaint should not be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and individual respondents.

Subsequently, the corporate respondent initiated restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), and the Superior Court issued an order staying all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she intends to continue her application against the respondents.

If she intends to proceed against the corporate respondent, she must provide submissions on the effect of the CCAA stay and whether she has sought leave from the Superior Court or consent to lift the stay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The corporate respondent subsequently went into bankruptcy.

The Tribunal noted that proceedings against a bankrupt respondent are stayed pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to either bring a motion in the Superior Court to lift the stay or reach an agreement with the Trustee within 60 days, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The corporate respondent was subject to a bankruptcy stay under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal repeatedly directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to seek leave to lift the stay.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions over an 18-month period, citing ill health but providing no supporting documentation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment.

The respondents failed to file a response, and a Trustee in Bankruptcy subsequently notified the Tribunal that both the corporate and personal respondents had declared bankruptcy.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act generally stays proceedings against bankrupt respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions within 14 days on whether the application can proceed or is stayed.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against her employer, which was in receivership, and several individual respondents.

The court-appointed Receiver requested early dismissal, arguing the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a Superior Court Receivership Order.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the individual respondents primarily concerned their acts as agents or employees of the organizational respondent, and proceeding would violate the Receivership Order.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications could not proceed without leave of the Court or consent of the Receiver.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his group benefits were discontinued during a company restructuring.

The respondent company was subsequently declared bankrupt.

The Tribunal requested submissions from the applicant on whether the application could proceed given the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant failed to provide the requested submissions or indicate how the application could proceed against the bankrupt respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The Tribunal previously ruled that the application could not proceed without leave of the Superior Court of Justice due to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal if she obtained leave.

Having failed to do so or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment against a corporate respondent and two individuals.

The Tribunal received notice that the corporate respondent was dissolved under bankruptcy and a court order stayed all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intends to pursue the applications, seek leave to lift the stay, and provide alternate addresses for service for the individual respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent subsequently filed for protection under the CCAA and was placed in receivership, resulting in a Superior Court order staying all proceedings against it.

The applicant requested that his application proceed because the respondent was settling with secured creditors.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was bound by the Superior Court's receivership order staying proceedings, and directed the applicant to seek leave from the Court if he wished to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his group benefits were discontinued during a company restructuring.

The respondent failed to file a timely response but subsequently submitted that it had declared bankruptcy and that the successor company had no employment relationship with the applicant.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on whether the application is stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate and an individual respondent.

The corporate respondent filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings against the corporate respondent were stayed pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the individual respondent because the applicant failed to provide a correct address for service, despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so.

The applicant filed a human rights application against three corporate respondents.

One respondent filed a response indicating it purchased assets from another respondent that was under CCAA protection.

The CEO of the other two respondents informed the Tribunal they were insolvent and subject to CCAA proceedings or receivership.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to make submissions and provide any court orders regarding the effect of the CCAA proceedings on the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and three individual respondents.

The organizational respondent was in receivership, and the Receiver argued the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal previously noted it was unclear if the individual respondents received notice of the application.

The applicant requested the Tribunal direct the organizational respondent to disclose the addresses of the individual respondents.

The Tribunal directed the Receiver to advise if it would accept service for the individual respondents or to provide their current or most recent addresses.

The respondents requested a stay and suspension of the human rights application in light of an Initial Order granted to the corporate respondent under the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal found that the application clearly fell within the scope of the proceedings stayed and suspended by the Superior Court's order.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the application stayed and suspended until the expiration of the CCAA stay period, subject to any motion the applicant might bring to lift the stay.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on family status and disability.

The institutional respondent and one personal respondent filed for bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings against them under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The remaining personal respondent requested that the Tribunal refuse to proceed against him until the applicant had the stays lifted.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the BIA stays only apply to the bankrupts, and directed the parties to advise if they intend to seek to lift the stays.