HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joseph Oram

Applicant

-and-

Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada, Local 132

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 28, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 834

Indexed as: Oram v. Abitibi Consolidated

[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on May 26, 2009 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

[2] The respondent company submits that the Application is stayed or suspended pursuant to Orders that have been made by Justice Gascon of the Québec Superior Court under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (the “CCAA”). The respondent union supports this position.

[3] In a previous Interim Decision, [2009 HRTO 2057](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/2057), the Tribunal provided direction regarding the continuation of the Application, noting that the Orders of the Québec Superior Court create or extend a stay of proceedings which affect the Tribunal. The stay period, as of the date of the Interim Decision, was until December 15, 2009.

[4] At paras. 5 to 8, the Tribunal stated:

In the circumstances, the Tribunal shall 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 is not extended beyond December 15, 2009 (or expires at some later date in the next 12 months), the applicant should advise the Tribunal in writing if he wishes his Application to proceed, within 20 days of the expiry of the Stay Period.

Similarly, if the applicant obtains leave of the Court to continue with his Application, he should advise the Tribunal in writing within 20 days of obtaining leave.

If the Stay Period is extended beyond November 30, 2010, and the applicant wishes his Application to remain in abeyance, he should advise the Tribunal in writing. If the applicant does not communicate with the Tribunal by November 30, 2010, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal further directs that the respondents advise the applicant in writing of any extensions to the Stay Period that may be granted by the Court in the period up to and including November 30, 2010, within 10 days of any such extension.

[5] On November 28, 2010, the applicant’s representative sent an email to the Tribunal, the respondent company and the respondent union. In that email, the applicant alleged that respondents failed to advise him of any extensions to the stay period. He submitted that it was his understanding that the stay period was extended until September 15, 2010, although he does not specify the source of that information. He requests that his Application proceed to the next stage in the Tribunal’s proceedings if the stay period has not been extended and that if it has been extended that his Application remain in abeyance until the expiration of the stay period.

[6] The respondent company sent an email dated November 29, 2010 to the Tribunal, the applicant and the respondent union advising that the respondent company (and other Abitibi companies) remain under CCAA protection although they hoped to exit it in the near future. The respondent company noted that if the applicant was claiming any monetary entitlement, he was required to file his proof of claim with the Monitor appointed by the Québec Court, about which counsel for the respondent company was unaware. The respondent company submitted that “As a matter of law, there is no residual or remaining ability for any arbitrator, Board, Tribunal or Court to award any form of compensation to Mr. Oram”.

[7] By email dated March 30, 2011, the applicant communicated with the Tribunal, the respondent company and the respondent union. In that email, the applicant requested that the Application proceed to the next step in the Tribunal’s proceedings. He noted that his claim under the CCAA proceedings had been disallowed by Ernst and Young in their capacity as court-appointed Monitor of the respondent company (“the Monitor”), attached a copy of a Notice of Disallowance dated February 15, 2011, and submitted that although he had filed a Notice of Dispute with the Monitor, he had not heard back about his Notice of Dispute.

[8] The applicant also advised that that he amends his Application to add the Monitor as a responding party to the Application and provides contact information about the Monitor. The applicant did not file a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the Tribunal’s consent to add another respondent to the Application.

[9] Neither the respondent company nor the respondent union have submitted any material following the applicant’s March 30, 2011 email.

ANALYSIS

[10] In a recent Tribunal Decision, Bortolin v. Bowater Canadian Forest Products, [2011 HRTO 522](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/522), the Tribunal noted that the respondent in that Application had obtained relief from its creditors pursuant to the CCAA by Justice Gascon’s order in 2009, but had emerged from CCAA protection as of December 9, 2010.

[11] Bowater Canadian Forest Products appears to be named as a Petitioner in the court proceedings before Justice Gascon of the Québec Superior Court as does the respondent company in this Application.

[12] Accordingly, the Tribunal determines it is appropriate to obtain updated information about the respondent company’s CCAA proceedings and directs the respondent company to provide this information to the Tribunal, copying the applicant and the respondent union, within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

[13] In addition, the Tribunal directs that the respondent company file any submissions it wishes to make, on whether the Application should be dismissed in light of the CCAA proceedings and the Notice of Disallowance issued by the Monitor to the applicant. In doing so, the respondent company is directed to deliver its submissions to the applicant and the respondent union and file them with the Tribunal within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

[14] The applicant and the respondent union may deliver any response to the respondent company’s submissions to the other parties and file with the Tribunal within 20 days following receipt of the respondent company’s submissions.

[15] The Tribunal will review these submissions and may issue further case directions to the parties including obtaining submissions from the parties about whether the applicant can seek to have the Monitor added as a respondent to his Application.

[16] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 28^th^ day of April, 2011.

“Signed by”

Alison Renton

Vice-chair