Brackenbury v. Priszm, 2011 HRTO 718

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Larry Brackenbury Applicant

-and-

Priszm LP by its General Partner Priszm Inc., Dave Potter, Ken Wilson and Sarjni Kumar Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Larry Brackenbury Applicant

-and-

Priszm LP by its General Partner Priszm Inc. and Tracie Layton Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: April 14, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 718 Indexed as: Brackenbury v. Priszm

Reasons for Decision

1These Applications were joined by Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 447, dated February 26, 2010. They were to be scheduled for hearing, but in the meantime, Counsel for the corporate respondent, Priszm LP, advised that his client was covered by an Initial Order under the Companies’ Creditors’ Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (“CCAA”), which provides, among other things, a stay of proceedings until April 29, 2011. He further indicates that this stay may be extended.

2In the circumstances, the Tribunal directs the applicant to advise the Tribunal and the respondents in writing if he wishes to continue his Application as against Priszm LP and/or the individual respondents by May 5, 2011.

3If the applicant indicates that he intends to pursue his Application against Priszm LP, he should, also by May 5, 2011, provide written submissions to the respondents and the Tribunal on the following issues:

a. What is the effect of the stay on his Application?

b. If the applicant takes the position that the CCAA order stays his Application, has he commenced an application in the Superior Court to lift the stay so as to allow the Application to proceed, or has sought the consent of the respondent and monitor to having the Application proceed?

4In the event that the applicant makes submissions with respect to the issues raised in this Interim Decision, the respondents have until May 12, 2011, to provide written response submissions to the applicant and file them with the Tribunal.

5Upon receipt of the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal may issue further directions. If the applicant does not communicate with the Tribunal by May 5, 2011, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned as against some or all of the respondents.

6I am not seized.