Blackburn v. Great Lakes Specialty Meats of Canada Inc., 2015 HRTO 1038

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Melanie Blackburn

Applicant

-and-

Great Lakes Specialty Meats of Canada Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: August 5, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1038

Indexed as: Blackburn v. Great Lakes Specialty Meats of Canada Inc.

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether the Application against the respondent is stayed because of its bankruptcy.

2In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In her Application, she sought monetary compensation as a remedy for the alleged discrimination.

3By letter dated June 19, 2015, the Tribunal received a letter from a Senior Associate with PricewaterhourseCoopers Inc. advising that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order, dated June 10, 2014, appointing PricewaterhourseCoopers Inc. as receiver of all of the assets, undertakings and properties of the respondent. The letter also advised the Tribunal that the Court has issued an order, dated October 29, 2014, declaring the respondent bankrupt. The Receiver provided a copy of each of these orders to the Tribunal.

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. Likewise, paragraph 9 of Court’s June 10, 2014 order confirms that no proceedings against or in respect of the respondent or its property shall be commenced or continued except with the written consent of the Receiver or with leave of the Court. The paragraph further confirms that any and all proceedings currently under way against or in respect of the respondent or its property are stayed and suspended pending further order of the Court.

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 respondent, she must either obtain consent of the Receiver or bring a motion in court to have the stay lifted in accordance with s. 69.4 of the BIA.

Order

7The Tribunal directs as follows:

a. The Application against the 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 she intends to seek the Receiver’s consent or an order of the Court to have this stay lifted. If she fails to advise the Tribunal of her intentions within this time period, the Tribunal will deem the Application against the respondent abandoned.

b. In light of the above, the mediation scheduled for August 27, 2015 is cancelled.

8I am not seized of this matter.