Brackenbury v. Priszm, 2012 HRTO 1292

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: Ena Chadha

Date: June 29, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1292

Indexed as: Brackenbury v. Priszm

1These Applications were joined by Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 447, dated February 26, 2010, and were scheduled for hearing. In the interim, 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. The stay of proceedings was to be in place until June 30, 2011.

2The applicant filed written submissions in which he acknowledged that his Application as against Priszm LP was stayed while the CCAA stay was in effect. At that time, he had not pursued an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to lift the stay or otherwise taken steps to allow this Application to proceed. The applicant took the position that even if he is ultimately unable to proceed against Priszm LP, he can still proceed against the individual respondents, who he asserts may be liable in their own right. However, he indicated that he did not want to proceed against the individual respondents while the issue of Priszm LP’s status under the CCAA proceedings is uncertain.

3By way of Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 1073, the Tribunal ordered that the Application be held in abeyance against both the corporate and the individual respondents for a period of up to one year, with the possibility of a further extension, depending on the progress of the CCAA proceedings. The Tribunal further held that if the CCAA proceedings were not resolved within the year, the applicant could make a written request for an extension of the abeyance or a request to proceed against the individual respondents, failing which the Application may be dismissed as abandoned

4On June 6, 2012, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal seeking an extention of six months in which the Tribunal holds the Application in abeyance on the basis that a Receiver has been appointed in the CCAA proceedings. The applicant indicates that in September 2011, in accordance with the CCAA process, the applicant filed a claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as against Priszm LP. The applicant submits that it is anticipated that the Receiver will issue a report to the Court as to the outcome of the claims against the directors and officers of Priszm LP, including the applicant’s claim.

5The respondents did not file any submissions in response to the applicant’s request and the time for doing so has now passed.

6Accordingly, I make the following orders:

a. The Tribunal will hold this Application in abeyance for a period of up to six months from the date of this Interim Decision, until it is determined that the CCAA stay against Priszm LP is lifted or the proceedings under the CCAA have been resolved; and

b. If the CCAA proceedings are not resolved within the six months, the applicant is required to write to the Tribunal (with a copy to the respondents) providing information as to the status of the CCAA proceedings and his claim, failing which the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

7I am not seized.