Hayes v. Priape Inc., 2014 HRTO 100

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Matthew-David Hayes

Applicant

-and-

Priape Inc. and Laurence Heath

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: January 23, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 100

Indexed as: Hayes v. Priape Inc.

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether the Application against the corporate respondent is stayed because of its bankruptcy. The Interim Decision also provides directions to the applicant with respect to his Application against the individual respondent.

2By Application dated October 25, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In his Application, he sought monetary compensation as a remedy for the alleged discrimination.

3The corporate respondent did not file a Response to the Application. Instead, by e-mail dated January 13, 2014, the trustee of the estate of the corporate respondent advised the Tribunal that the corporate respondent has been bankrupt as of October 21, 2013. Attached to the e-mail was a Notice of Bankruptcy and First Meeting of Creditors that indicated that the corporate respondent filed, or was deemed to have filed, an assignment into bankruptcy on October 21, 2013.

4Section 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 an 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. This stay is effective as of the date of the assignment into bankruptcy.

5The Tribunal has held that Code proceedings seeking monetary remedies from a corporate respondent are subject to the stay set out in section 69 of the BIA. As such they are prevented from proceeding. See, for example, Trowell v. 6286160 Canada, 2010 HRTO 859.

6If the applicant wishes to pursue this Application against the corporate respondent, he must bring a motion in court to have the stay lifted in accordance with s. 69.4 of the BIA. The applicant is directed to advise the Tribunal in writing, within 14 days of this Interim Decision, whether he intends to bring such a motion in court.

7With respect to the Application against the individual respondent, the applicant must provide the Tribunal with an address for the individual respondent in order for his Application against the individual respondent to be processed. In his Application, the applicant provided the Tribunal with the address of the corporate respondent. The Notice sent to the individual respondent at this address was returned marked as “MOVED/UNKNOWN”).

8Rule 6.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that an Application accepted by the Tribunal for processing will not be dealt with in respect of a respondent who cannot be contacted at the address provided in the Application.

Order

9The Tribunal directs as follows:

a. The Application against the corporate respondent is stayed under s. 69 of the BIA. The applicant is directed to advise the Tribunal in writing, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, whether he intends to bring a motion in court to have this stay lifted. If he fails to advise the Tribunal of his intentions within this time period, the Tribunal may deem the Application against the corporate respondent abandoned.

b. The applicant must provide the Tribunal with a current, accurate address for the individual respondent within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision. If he fails to do so, the Tribunal may deem the Application against the individual respondent abandoned.

10I am not seized of this matter.