Chow v. PharmEng Technology, 2010 HRTO 1202

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jason Zhang Cheng Chow

Applicant

-and-

PharmEng Technology (A Division of PE Pharma Inc.)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: May 28, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1202

Indexed as: Chow v. PharmEng Technology

1This is an Application filed on September 28, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges that the applicant was discriminated against in employment on the grounds of disability when his group benefits were discontinued by the respondent during a company restructuring.

2The respondent had failed to provide a Response within the time period required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In an Interim Decision dated April 27, 2010, 2010 HRTO 918, the Tribunal directed the respondent to file a Response to the Application within 7 days of the Interim Decision.

3On May 4, 2010 Alan Kwong, who identifies himself as the Managing Director of PharmEng Technology, a Division of PE Pharma Inc., wrote to the Tribunal indicating that the applicant’s benefits had ceased as of August 31, 2009 owing to a company restructuring. According to Mr. Kwong the applicant had been an employee of Pharmeng Innovations, a division of the named respondent, PharmEng Technology Inc. (“PTI”), who had an accident in November 2007 and who subsequently received disability benefits from November 2007 until November 2008. The applicant apparently did not return to work after November 2008 but continued to receive the standard dental and medical benefits from PTI he had received prior to his injury. According to Mr. Kwong these benefits continued until August 31, 2009 at which time all benefits provided by PTI ended owing to a company restructuring.

4Mr. Kwong states PTI filed a Notice of Intent with the courts to restructure which resulted in a new company, PE Pharma Inc. being formed in July 2009. PE Pharma Inc. apparently bought the assets of PTI (but not the company shares or liability). According to Mr. Kwong, PTI was declared bankrupt on January 29, 2010 and PE Pharma Inc., the successor organization, has no employment relationship with the applicant. Mr. Kwong states that any ongoing issues the applicant may have with his injuries or benefits should be taken up with the former insurance company and the trustees of PTI which are A Farber & Partners Inc. Mr. Kwong attaches to his letter several documents including a Notice of Bankruptcy and First Meeting of Creditors signed by A Farber & Partners Inc. on February 4, 2010 which states that PTI was deemed bankrupt on January 29, 2010

DECISION

5It is not clear that Mr. Kwong provided a copy of his letter and enclosures to the applicant. The Tribunal will forward a copy of these materials to the applicant and provide the applicant an opportunity to file submissions in response. The applicant’s submissions should address the issue of whether his Application can proceed or is stayed (prevented from proceeding) in light of the information provided by Mr. Kwong.

6According to Mr. Kwong, PTI has declared bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended, (the “BIA”). The Tribunal has determined in a number of decisions that section 69 of the BIA stays applications filed with the Tribunal from proceeding against a respondent who has been determined to be bankrupt under the BIA. See for example Trowell v. 6286160 Canada, 2010 HRTO 859. Tribunal decisions are accessible at www.canlii.org. Under these circumstances the Tribunal has determined that an applicant must have the stay lifted or take other steps to enable an application to proceed within a specific timeframe otherwise the Tribunal will deem the application to be abandoned.

7The applicant is required to provide his submissions within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

8I am not seized of this matter