Jacquelyn Trowell v. 6286160 Canada Limited o/a CR Printing and Sameer Hage, 2010 HRTO 859

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jacquelyn Trowell Applicant

-and-

6286160 Canada Limited o/a CR Printing and Sameer Hage Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: April 20, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 859 Indexed as: Trowell v. 6286160 Canada

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether the Application against the corporate respondent is stayed because of a bankruptcy proceeding, and whether the Application against the individual respondent should be dismissed.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on September 2, 2009.

3The Tribunal experienced some difficulty in serving the Application on the respondents because it appears that the corporate respondent is involved in bankruptcy proceedings. The Tribunal successfully served the Application on the corporate respondent at an alternate address provided by the applicant, but has not been able to serve it on the individual respondent because the applicant has not provided an alternate address for him.

4The corporate respondent did not file a Response to the Application. Instead, on January 28 and March 23, 2010, the trustee of the estate of the corporate respondent filed various bankruptcy documents, including the Official Receiver’s Certificate of Appointment dated August 19, 2009, 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”), and the trustee’s Notice to Bankrupt of Meetings of Creditors and Notice of Bankruptcy and First Meeting of Creditors dated August 21, 2009.

5On February 3, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Requirement to Confirm Address for Delivery to the applicant, which informed her that the Application against the individual respondent may be dismissed if, within 20 days, she failed to provide a current, complete and accurate address for the individual respondent, or alternatively, written reasons why she believes that the address that she already provided is current, accurate and complete.

6Section 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.

7In my view, the Code proceedings against the corporate respondent are stayed pursuant to section 69 of the BIA, and the Application may not proceed against it at this time.

8The applicant is directed to advise the Tribunal within one year of the date of this Interim Decision whether she has lifted the stay or taken other steps to enable her Application against the corporate respondent to proceed. If the applicant fails to do so, the Tribunal may deem the Application abandoned and close its file.

9With respect to the Application against the individual respondent, Rule 6.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that an Application accepted by the Tribunal for processing will not be dealt with in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the address provided in the Application. The Tribunal has also confirmed in several decisions that it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide a correct address for each respondent named in the Application: see, for example, Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347.

10In the case at hand, the Tribunal was unable to deliver the Application to the individual respondent at the address provided by the applicant. Following the receipt of bankruptcy documents from the trustee, the Tribunal notified the applicant that the Application may be dismissed against the individual respondent if she failed to provide a correct address for him, or reasons why she believes that the address that she already provided is correct. To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s Notice, and the time for doing so has now passed. Accordingly, the Application against the individual respondent is dismissed.

11I am not seized of this matter.