Gordon Russell v. Brute Manufacturing Limited, Bangor Metal Corp, and 2175033 Ontario Inc., 2010 HRTO 200

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gordon Russell

Applicant

-and-

Brute Manufacturing Limited, Bangor Metal Corp, and 2175033 Ontario Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: January 28, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 200

Indexed as: Russell v. Brute Manufacturing

1This is an Application filed on July 17, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

22175033 Ontario Inc. filed a Response on November 23, 2009, which states that it discovered that Brute Manufacturing Limited (“Brute”) “was in or about to become covered by CCAA Court protection” and that it purchased some of Brute’s assets.

3No completed Response from Brute or Bangor Metal Corp (“Bangor”) has been received by the Tribunal. In a letter dated November 30, 2009, John W. Mercer, who is identified in the Application as the CEO of Brute and the owner of Bangor, states that the addresses for Brute and Bangor as listed on the Application are no longer valid. The letter continues:

Brute Manufacturing was the subject of proceedings under the Corporate Creditors Arrangement Act and its assets were sold under those proceedings to Clemmer-Steelcraft, which I believe is affiliated with 2175033 Ontario Inc. Brute Manufacturing is an insolvent company with no assets and no employees.

Bangor Metals Corp is the parent company of Brute Manufacturing Limited but is also insolvent and in receivership (Deloitte’s). It also has no assets and no employees.

4In an e-mail dated December 18, 2009, Mr. Mercer provided an address for Bruce Manufacturing Limited, which is different from the addresses listed in the Application.

5The applicant filed a Reply on January 15, 2009. It does not address the status of Brute and Bangor with respect to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended (“CCAA”). In fact, none of the parties has provided documentation or particulars about the CCAA proceedings. The Tribunal is unable to determine whether there is or has been a court-ordered stay or the current status of the CCAA proceedings.

6The parties are ordered to make submissions with respect to the effect of the proceedings under the CCAA on these proceedings. If a section 11 court order has been made, a copy must be provided to the Tribunal. Submissions from the respondents must be delivered to the applicant and filed with the Tribunal by February 22, 2010, and submissions from the applicant delivered to the respondents and filed by March 1, 2010.

7I am not seized.