Victoria Korosec v. 1039480 Ontario Inc. o/a The Salon, 2017 HRTO 958

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Victoria Korosec

Applicant

-and-

1039480 Ontario Inc. o/a The Salon

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: July 27, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 958 Indexed as: Korosec v. 1039480 Ontario Inc.

1This Interim Decision addresses the consequences for this proceeding of the respondent’s assignment into bankruptcy.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Tribunal deferred consideration of her Application pending the completion of a complaint she filed under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”).

3By Interim Decision, 2017 HRTO 742, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request to reactivate her deferred Application at the conclusion of the ESA proceeding. It also directed a preliminary hearing to determine whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application on the basis that the substance of the Application was appropriately dealt with in the ESA proceeding.

4On July 21, 2017, the Tribunal received a Notice of Bankruptcy and a Certificate of Assignment from BDO Canada Ltd. advising that the respondent made an assignment into bankruptcy as of June 21, 2017.

5Under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3 (“BIA”), no proceedings against a debtor that has filed for bankruptcy may be continued. This is otherwise known as a stay of proceedings. Section 69.3(1) states as follows:

69.3(1) Subject to subsections (1.1) and (2) and sections 69.4 and 69.5, on the bankruptcy of any debtor, no creditor has any remedy against the debtor or the debtor’s property, or shall commence or continue any action, execution or other proceedings, for the recovery of a claim provable in bankruptcy.

6The courts have held that legal proceedings seeking monetary relief are “claims provable in bankruptcy” and subject to the statutory stay of proceedings in s. 69 of the BIA.

7In this case, the Application includes a claim for monetary relief. The Tribunal has held that Code proceedings seeking monetary remedies from respondents 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, and Wesley v. 2252466 Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 2178. As a result, this Application is stayed against the respondent.

8If the applicant wishes to pursue this Application against the respondent, she must bring a motion in court to have the stay lifted in accordance with s. 69.4 of the BIA. The applicant must advise the Tribunal in writing, within 14 days of this Interim Decision, whether she intends to bring such a motion in court.

ORDER

9This Application is stayed against the respondent.

10Within 14 days of this Interim Decision, the applicant must advise the Tribunal, in writing, whether she intends to bring a motion in court to have the stay lifted. If she fails to advise the Tribunal of her intentions within this time period, the Tribunal will deem the Application to have been abandoned.

11I am not seized of this matter.