Kitsis v. Di-Cut Industries Ltd., 2016 HRTO 1061

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sofia Kitsis

Applicant

-and-

Di-Cut Industries Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: August 10, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1061

Indexed as: Kitsis v. Di-Cut Industries Ltd.

1On May 18, 2016, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 680, which stated at paras. 3-7:

On July 21, 2015, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

On February 23, 2016, the respondent’s counsel filed various bankruptcy documents, including the Notice of Bankruptcy, First Meeting of Creditors issued by the trustee of the estate of the respondent.

Section 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 the 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.

In light of the above, it appears that proceedings against the respondent under the Code, including the Application at hand, are stayed pursuant to s. 69 of the BIA.

Within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall send the Tribunal’s Registrar and the respondent a letter or an email, which confirms whether or not she intends to bring a motion in court to have the stay lifted. If she fails to follow this direction, the Tribunal will likely deem the Application to be abandoned and dismiss it.

2On May 31, 2016, the applicant filed a letter with the Tribunal, which stated that she does not intend to bring a motion in court to have the stay lifted.

3Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative, or at the request of any party. The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

4Given that it appears that proceedings against the respondent under the Code, including the Application at hand, are stayed pursuant to s. 69 of the BIA, and the applicant does not intend to bring a motion in court to have the stay lifted, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, defers consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding.

5Pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal’s Rules and Forms can be found on its website.

6I am not seized of this matter.