Grandbois v. Belanger R.V. Inc., 2013 HRTO 158

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gilles Grandbois

Applicant

-and-

Belanger R.V. Inc., Dave Yurick, Steven Preskett and Nick Bissonnette

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: January 29, 2012

Citation: 2013 HRTO 158

Indexed as: Grandbois v. Belanger R.V. Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gilles Grandbois, Applicant

Chantal Tie, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application on October 1, 2012, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On October 9, 2012, the Tribunal delivered a Notice of Application and copies of the Application to the respondents at the corporate respondent’s mailing address.

3On October 24, 2012, Raymond Chabot Inc. wrote to the Tribunal stating that it is the corporate respondent’s Trustee in bankruptcy (“Trustee”) and a stay of proceedings is in effect. A copy of the Certificate of Appointment (dated October 15, 2012) of the Trustee and a copy of the Notice of Stay of Proceedings (dated October 18, 2012) with respect to this Application was attached to the correspondence.

4To date, no response has been received from the individual respondents.

5On November 7, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant write to the Tribunal, Trustee and respondents advising whether or not he intends to seek leave of the Court to lift the stay of proceedings and his intentions with respect to the Application as against the other respondents.

6The Tribunal’s email correspondence forwarding the Case Assessment Direction to the respondents was returned as unsuccessful delivery, although it appears that the copies sent by post were delivered at the corporate respondent’s business address.

7The applicant filed submissions on December 4, 2012 confirming that he wishes to proceed with the Application as against the individual respondents. The applicant notes that the statutory stay against the corporate respondent does not preclude proceedings against the individual respondents. The applicant points out that he has made allegations of harassment against each of the individual respondents, which could result in liability under the Code. The applicant submits that the Application should be maintained against the individual respondents.

8The applicant also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) on December 21, 2012 asking that the Tribunal require the Trustee 1.) to advise whether the Application was delivered to each of the individual respondents and 2.) to provide the last known address for each of the individual respondents from the corporate business records of the corporate respondent. The applicant notes that the copies of his December 4, 2012 submissions addressed to the individual respondents were couriered to the corporate respondent’s business address; however, the correspondence was returned as undeliverable.

9Neither the individual respondents nor the Trustee filed a response to the applicant’s submissions with respect to the applicant’s intentions of proceeding with the Application as against the individual respondents. Neither the individual respondents nor the Trustee filed a response to the applicant’s RFOP seeking contact information for the individual respondents.

10The timeline for filing submissions in compliance with the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction and in response to the applicant’s RFOP has elapsed.

11It is unclear whether the individual respondents received a copy of the Application and the Tribunal was unable to deliver the Case Assessment Direction to the individual respondents. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will not issue any directions or make an order at this time in relation to the applicant’s position that the Application should proceed against the individual respondents.

12Rule 1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedures states that the Tribunal may:

Require a party or other person to produce any document, information or thing and to provide such assistance as is reasonably necessary, including using any date storage, processing or retrieval device of system, to produce the information in any form. (See also s. 43(3) of the Code.)

13The Tribunal has in previous decisions required corporate respondents to provide last known addresses for personal respondents who are no longer in the company’s employ: Berahmand v. B2B Trust, 2012 HRTO 788 and the cases cited at para. 9.

14Given the uncertainty surrounding whether or not the individual respondents received notice of this proceeding, the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to grant the applicant’s request. The Trustee is required to confirm whether or not the Application was forwarded to the individual respondents, details regarding the date and means of delivery and if delivery was successful. The Trustee is also required to provide the last known address for each of the individual respondents from the corporate business records of the corporate respondent.

15The Tribunal directs as follows:

i. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the Trustee is required to write to the Tribunal, copied to the applicant:

1.) Advising whether or not the Application was delivered to each of the individual respondents, details regarding the date and means of delivery and if delivery was successful; and

2.) Providing the last known address for each of the individual respondents from the corporate business records of the corporate respondent.

ii. The Tribunal may issue further directions and/or schedule further steps regarding any issue in this matter.

16I am not seized of this matter.