HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Shemroy Manning
Applicant
-and-
JP’s Restaurant and Jean Paul Langis
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Manning v. JP’s Restaurant
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Shemroy Manning, Applicant ) Self-represented
INTRODUCTION
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to remove certain individual respondents from the Application, and to decide whether the Application against the remaining respondents should be stayed because of a bankruptcy proceeding.
BACKGROUND
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 October 26, 2009.
3The respondents filed a Response on January 6, 2010. The Response identified the organization respondent as a sole proprietorship, and named Frida Langis, Grace Fox, Daryn Majbroda, Bruce Rogers, Kathleen Kartinen, Leora Miller, and Harley Kidder as additional respondents. Witness statements from these individuals were attached to the Response.
4On May 3, 2010, the trustee of the estate of the Jean Paul Langis filed various bankruptcy documents, including the trustee’s Notice of Bankruptcy and of Impending Discharge of Bankrupt and Request of a First Meeting of Creditors, Mr. Langis’s Statement of Affairs (Non-Business Bankruptcy), the trustee and Mr. Langis’s Monthly Income and Expense Statement of the Bankrupt and the Family Unit and Information (or Amended Information) Concerning the Financial Situation of the Individual Bankrupt, and Mr. Langis’s Assignment for the General Benefit of Creditors.
5Between May and November 2010, the Tribunal’s Registrar sent the parties several letters, which requested further information about whether the additional named respondents were respondents or witnesses, and about the status of the organization respondent given Mr. Langis’s apparent bankruptcy.
6None of the parties responded to the Tribunal’s letters with the exception of the applicant, who only filed a letter on November 26, 2010 after the Tribunal warned him that it would deem him to have abandoned his Application if he failed to respond. The applicant’s letter stated that, according to his research, the organization respondent is no longer operating.
REMOVAL OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS
7Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party.
8The Tribunal orders that Ms. Langis, Ms. Fox, Mr. Majbroda, Mr. Rogers, Ms. Kartinen, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Kidder be removed as respondents to the Application because there are no allegations in the pleadings that any of them violated the applicant’s rights under the Code.
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
9Section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended (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.
10Based on the materials and submissions before me, my view is that the Code proceedings against the respondents, Jean Paul Langis and JP’s Restaurant (which is a sole proprietorship owned by Mr. Langis), are stayed pursuant to section 69 of the BIA, and the Application may not proceed against them at this time.
11The 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 respondents to proceed. If the applicant fails to do so, the Tribunal may deem the Application abandoned and close its file.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 2^nd^ day of February, 2011.
”signed by”____________
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair