HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Berry

Applicant

-and-

Lear Corporation – Whitby Ontario Canada

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: March 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 614

Indexed as: Berry v. Lear Corporation

1This is an Application filed April 7, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in employment. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to provide further direction regarding the continuation of this proceeding.

2As the respondent did not file a Response to the Application within the time set out in the Notice of Application, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1182, directing the respondent to file a Response, together with an explanation why it was not filed in accordance with the deadline.

3By letter dated August 10, 2009, the respondent advised the Tribunal that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) issued an Order on an Application by Lear Canada, Lear Canada Investments Ltd., Lear Corporation Canada Ltd., and others, under section 18.6 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (the “CCAA”) and provided a copy of the Order. The respondent advised that the companies to whom the Order applies own, operate and/or control the respondent and submitted that the Order stayed or suspended this Application as of July 9, 2009.

4The respondent also submitted that, as a result of the Order and the stay or suspension of proceedings provided for therein, the deadline for filing its Response had not yet passed. The respondent advised that it would file a proper Response if the matter was continued upon Lear’s emergence from the protections of the CCAA, or if the applicant, at an earlier date, obtained leave of the Court to continue the proceeding.

5On August 21, 2009, the Tribunal wrote to the parties and provided the applicant with a copy of the respondent’s August 10, 2009 letter and a copy of the Order. The Tribunal sought submissions from the applicant and directed the respondent to provide the Tribunal with information as to the status of the Order and any further submissions the respondent wished to make in reply to the applicant’s submissions.

6The applicant submitted, among other things, that the respondent had been given a new contract that would extend production to 2012. He also submitted that the respondent did not respond to his Application as a delay tactic as the respondent knew about going into protection. The respondent provided a copy of an Order of the Court, dated August 6, 2009, extending the Stay Period in the initial Order to November 20, 2009, inclusive.

7In a second Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1724, the Tribunal held that the Court’s Order had the effect of staying or suspending the proceeding and, as such, the respondent was not required to file a Response at the time. The Tribunal also indicated that it would take no further steps in this matter for a period of up to one year unless contacted by one of the parties. If the Stay Period was not extended beyond November 20, 2009, the Tribunal stated that the applicant should advise the Tribunal in writing if he wished his Application to proceed, within 20 days of the expiry of the Stay Period.

8On November 23, 2009, the Tribunal received a letter from the applicant, dated November 12, 2009 and copied to the respondent, wherein the applicant stated, among other things, that he wanted to notify the Tribunal that it was announced on the news that the respondent had come out of bankruptcy. He requested that his Application be made active.

9On January 18, 2010, the Tribunal received further correspondence from the applicant, attaching news articles regarding the respondent emerging from bankruptcy on November 9, 2009. The applicant confirmed he delivered a copy of his correspondence to the respondent on January 26, 2010.

CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDING

10In the circumstances, it appears that there is no longer an Order of the Court, pursuant to the CCAA, staying or suspending the proceeding. The respondent is required to provide a Response (Form 2) to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

11I am not seized.