Schober v. Artistic Home Renovations Ltd., 2017 HRTO 988

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jennifer Schober

Applicant

-and-

Artistic Home Renovations Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: August 2, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 988

Indexed as: Schober v. Artistic Home Renovations Ltd.

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”).

3After several communications with the Tribunal, the Trustee in bankruptcy has confirmed that 448836 Ontario Ltd which operated under the name Artistic Home Renovations Ltd, the respondent named in this case, has filed for bankruptcy.

4Under 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.

5The 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.

6In 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.

7If the applicant wishes to pursue this Application against the respondent, she must bring a motion in the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa 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.

8I note that the applicant has advised the Tribunal that the respondent’s owner, Charles Schachnow, has reopened a new business, Artistic Construction, in the same location as his previous business. Unfortunately, the applicant’s claim was against Mr. Schachnow’s previous company which has now filed for bankruptcy.

ORDER

9This Application is stayed against the respondent. As a result, the hearing scheduled for February 27-28, 2018 is cancelled.

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.