Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

The applicant requested a six-month extension of the abeyance of his human rights application against the corporate and individual respondents due to ongoing CCAA proceedings involving the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that a Receiver had been appointed and the applicant had filed a claim in the CCAA process.

The application was ordered held in abeyance for up to six months, pending the resolution of the CCAA proceedings or the lifting of the stay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal considered whether the application was stayed under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the application is stayed and ordered the applicant to provide evidence that the stay has been lifted or written submissions on why she is entitled to continue, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent subsequently filed an assignment in bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant indicated that he would not apply to have the stay lifted and was not seeking to place the application in abeyance.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

The respondent subsequently obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, which stayed the proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the application stayed until the CCAA stay was lifted, requiring the applicant to advise the Tribunal of her intention to proceed within 30 days of the stay's expiration.

The CCAA stay ended and the respondent was placed into receivership.

The applicant failed to make submissions within the required timeframe, and the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal received notice that the respondent had been declared bankrupt and his property assigned to a trustee.

Pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, proceedings for the recovery of a claim provable in bankruptcy are stayed.

The Tribunal held the application in abeyance and directed the applicant to advise within one year if the stay is lifted or no longer in effect.

The corporate respondent was placed into receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondents' counsel advised the Tribunal that the receivership effectively ended the proceeding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she wishes to continue her application against the corporate and/or individual respondent, and to provide submissions on the effect of the receivership if she intends to pursue the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age.

The respondent employer's counsel advised the Tribunal that the corporate entity operating the employer was in receivership and subject to a stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Noting that the receivership order was dated 2006 but the employer was operating in 2009, the Tribunal ordered the respondent employer or Receiver to clarify the current status of the receivership and whether a stay remains in effect.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to pay general damages as agreed.

The respondent filed a Response stating it had filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal found the proceedings were stayed pursuant to s. 69 of the BIA and directed the applicant to advise within one year if the stay is lifted.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code after her employment was terminated.

Prior to her termination, the respondent had obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) which stayed all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant commenced the application without obtaining the required written consent of the Monitor or leave of the Superior Court of Justice.

As the application was commenced in the face of a court-ordered stay, it was deemed void and dismissed.

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

Before mediation, the respondent obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors' Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed proceedings against it.

The applicant requested that her application be stayed until the CCAA stay is lifted.

The Tribunal ordered the application stayed until the CCAA stay is no longer in effect, requiring the applicant to advise the Tribunal within 30 days of the stay being lifted if she intends to proceed.

The applicant requested that his human rights applications against the corporate and individual respondents be held in abeyance because the corporate respondent was subject to an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed proceedings against it.

The applicant did not wish to proceed against the individual respondents while the corporate respondent's status remained uncertain.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applications held in abeyance for up to one year, pending the resolution of the CCAA proceedings or the lifting of the stay.

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 respondent advised the Tribunal that it had filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal found that the application was a proceeding against the respondent that must be stayed under section 69(1) of the Act.

The scheduled summary hearing was adjourned, and the respondent was directed to update the Tribunal on the status of the bankruptcy proposal.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer, which subsequently went into receivership, and two individual respondents.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application against the corporate respondent and proceed only against the individuals.

The individual respondents requested a deferral or stay of the proceedings, relying on the corporate receivership order and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide further written submissions on whether the withdrawal should be permitted and whether the stay of proceedings applies to the individual respondents.

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 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 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 an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy, resulting in the proceedings being stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise if he intended to take steps to lift the stay.

After the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.