Moore v. Ferro & Company, 2015 HRTO 1546

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Philton Moore Applicant

-and-

Ferro & Company and Ellen Helden Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: November 16, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1546 Indexed as: Moore v. Ferro & Company

1This Interim Decision is written further to the Request for Order filed by the applicant on November 9, 2015, seeking an order postponing or re-scheduling the hearing in this matter for a period of six months in order to allow him to seek leave from the Bankruptcy Court to lift the stay of proceedings as against Mr. Ferro.

2The hearing in this matter is currently scheduled to proceed in Hamilton on December 1 to 3, 2015.

3The applicant’s request is denied. The applicant has been aware that Mr. Ferro made an assignment in bankruptcy since July 30, 2015. By this Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated August 11, 2015, he was referred to this Tribunal’s case law upholding statutory stays of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). On September 3, 2015, the applicant was provided with a copy of Mr. Ferro’s assignment in bankruptcy and given the contact information for the trustee-in-bankruptcy. Still further, on September 22, 2015, the applicant expressly was advised by the trustee-in-bankruptcy that, if he was seeking to annul the bankruptcy or lift the stay, then he needed to seek leave of the Bankruptcy Court. The statutory stay of proceedings as against Mr. Ferro ultimately was confirmed by this Tribunal’s CAD dated October 20, 2015.

4In my view, the applicant has had ample time to proceed before Bankruptcy Court in order to request that the statutory stay of proceedings as against Mr. Ferro be lifted. The applicant has failed to do so. Even as of the date of his Request for Order and up to the present date, the applicant has not provided this Tribunal with any indication that he has initiated any proceeding in Bankruptcy Court in order to request that the stay be lifted.

5I also am cognizant of the fact that the hearing dates in this long delayed matter were agreed to by the applicant at a time when he already had been made aware that Mr. Ferro had made an assignment in bankruptcy. The Notice of Hearing in this matter confirming the agreed-upon hearing dates was sent out on September 10, 2015, after the applicant had been made aware through the CAD dated August 11, 2015 of this Tribunal’s case law upholding statutory stays of proceedings under the BIA and after the remaining respondents had filed a copy of Mr. Ferro’s assignment in bankruptcy. The 14-day period for seeking to re-schedule the hearing did not expire until after the applicant had expressly been advised by the trustee-in-bankruptcy that he needed to proceed before Bankruptcy Court if he was seeking either to annul the bankruptcy or lift the statutory stay. And yet no timely request was made by the applicant to re-schedule the hearing.

6In my view, the applicant has not established the kind of exceptional circumstances required to justify postponing or re-scheduling the hearing in this matter.

ORDER

7For the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s request to postpone or re-schedule the hearing in this matter is denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled on December 1 to 3, 2015, in Hamilton, commencing at 10 a.m. each day.