Bahmet v. Gladstone Transfer Ltd.

Bahmet v. Gladstone Transfer Ltd.

Dismiss the motion and retain the corporate employer, Gladstone Transfer Ltd., as the proper respondent because the corporation exists, the CHRA permits complaints against the employer for pre-sale discrimination, the purchaser did not meet the burden of proving GTL is not the proper respondent, and the share purchase agreement indemnity does not displace respondent status.

Citation
2025 CHRT 37
Parties
Complainant: Kostiantyn Bahmet; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Gladstone Transfer Ltd.; Vendor/former Owner: Scott Kinley
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Ruling on Pre Hearing Motion to Determine Proper Respondent
Outcome
Motion dismissed; Gladstone Transfer Ltd. remains the proper respondent
Legal Topics
Successor Liability, Proper Respondent, Discrimination Based on National or Ethnic Origin, Share Purchase Agreement Indemnity, Transfer of Corporate Ownership
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Corporate/commercial Law Successor Liability Proper Respondent Discrimination Based on National or Ethnic Origin Share Purchase Agreement Indemnity Transfer of Corporate Ownership

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kostiantyn Bahmet

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Gladstone Transfer Ltd.

Respondent

Scott Kinley

Vendor/former Owner

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Ruling on Pre Hearing Motion to Determine Proper Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a sale of a corporation by share transfer absolves the corporation of liability for discriminatory acts committed before the sale
  2. 2 Whether the purchaser or the vendor is the proper respondent for pre-sale human rights claims
  3. 3 What effect, if any, a share purchase agreement indemnity clause has on determining the proper respondent

Ratio Decidendi

Dismiss the motion and retain the corporate employer, Gladstone Transfer Ltd., as the proper respondent because the corporation exists, the CHRA permits complaints against the employer for pre-sale discrimination, the purchaser did not meet the burden of proving GTL is not the proper respondent, and the share purchase agreement indemnity does not displace respondent status.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; Gladstone Transfer Ltd. remains the proper respondent

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Case management will resume with Gladstone Transfer Ltd. as the respondent