HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
James Brennan
Applicant
-and-
Coilpac Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Brennan v. Coilpac
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on June 19, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment.
2On May 10, 2010, the respondent filed with the Tribunal an Official Receiver’s Certificate of Appointment dated May 3, 2010, which certified that the corporate respondent filed an assignment under section 49 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended (the “BIA”).
3Section 69 of the BIA provides that no creditor has any remedy against the insolvent person or the insolvent person’s property, or shall commence or continue any action, execution or other proceedings, for the recovery of a claim provable in bankruptcy. The Tribunal has accepted that the Code proceedings against the bankrupt respondents are stayed pursuant to section 69 of the BIA. See for example Rijal v. Distinctive Designs Furniture, 2009 HRTO 297. As noted in Rijal,
Where appropriate, the Bankruptcy Court will lift the statutory stay to allow litigants either in other actions before the court or in other forums to continue those claims. However, it is the Bankruptcy Court that is tasked with the management of litigation against parties who have been granted protection under the BIA.
(at para. 16).
4The Application may not proceed against the respondent at this time. The applicant is directed to advise the Tribunal within one year of the date of this Interim Decision whether he has lifted the stay or taken other steps to enable his Application against the respondent to proceed. If the applicant fails to do so, the Tribunal may deem the Application abandoned and close its file.
5I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 17th day of June, 2010.
“Signed By”
Judith Keene
Vice-chair