Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO 2085

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Keyvan Nourhaghighi Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board, COSTI Corvetti Centre, COSTI Board, City of Toronto, United Way of Greater Toronto, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General, and eight individual respondents Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: December 3, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2085 Indexed as: Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Keyvan Nourhaghighi, Applicant ) No submissions

Toronto Catholic District School Board ) Amy R. Tibble, Counsel and six individual respondents )

COSTI Corvetti Centre, COSTI Board ) and two individual respondents ) Marnie Baizley, Counsel

City of Toronto, United Way of Greater ) Toronto, and Her Majesty the Queen ) No submissions in Right of Ontario as represented by ) the Attorney General, Respondents )

1This is an Application filed on December 11, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Tribunal has issued the following Interim Decisions in this matter: 2009 HRTO 1519 (the “September decision”); 2009 HRTO 1681 (the “October decision”).

2In the September decision, the Tribunal directed that no person having knowledge of the order publish (including posting on the internet) or distribute any information identifying the individual respondents to this Application, as well as any individuals (apart from counsel) named in the Application, Responses or Reply.

3The September decision also described the applicant’s conduct at the hearing, stating that the applicant repeatedly used language that was insulting, offensive and profane to counsel for the Board respondents and the Tribunal. The decision therefore also directed the applicant to provide the Tribunal with a written undertaking, by October 6, 2009, agreeing to abide by the Tribunal’s expectations of appropriate language and conduct during its processes and in particular, and to refrain from any oral or written statements that are offensive, abusive or profane. The September decision stated that if the applicant did not provide this written assurance by this deadline, the Tribunal would consider how to proceed with his Application, and may take further steps including receiving submissions on dismissal of the Application as an abuse of process

4The Tribunal subsequently received a letter from counsel for the Toronto Catholic District School Board and six individual respondents (the “Board respondents”), requesting that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions of September 22, 2009.

5The grounds for the request to dismiss were that the applicant had not filed the undertaking required by the Interim Decision, and that the applicant failed to comply with the “publication ban” as outlined in that Interim Decision and continued to disseminate information about the personally named respondents on the internet.

6Other respondents (the “COSTI respondents”) also supported the request to dismiss on the basis of the applicant’s failure to provide the undertaking.

7The Tribunal then issued the October decision, in which it requested submissions on the request to dismiss, stating that upon receipt of the written submissions the Tribunal may make further directions as to the hearing of this matter, or may dismiss the Application.

8The Board respondents and the COSTI respondents have provided submissions within the time set by the Tribunal. The applicant has not responded, despite having been given the opportunity to do so. The Tribunal’s decision was sent to the applicant by mail and registered mail to the address he provided and neither has been returned.

DECISION

9The Tribunal’s September decision ordered that no person having knowledge of the order publish (including posting on the internet) or distribute any information identifying the individual respondents to the Application, as well as any individuals (apart from counsel) named in the Application, Responses or Reply. In the course of arriving at its decision, the Tribunal reviewed materials provided by the respondent, taken from the internet, and found that the applicant was responsible for its dissemination. The documents printed from the internet reproduce the Application. They contain the applicant’s photograph, captioned “The Lord of the Law – The Right Honourable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi”. They state that they are posted by the applicant. They refer to the Application as part of “my autobiography”. One posting ends with the title “Major Nourhaghighi’s Encyclopedia 2009”.

10In all the circumstances, the Tribunal found in its September decision that a publication ban pending the hearing was necessary to ensure the integrity of the Tribunal’s processes and protect the ability of individuals to participate in the process.

11In reviewing the applicant’s conduct at the hearing, the Tribunal stated:

Apart from the Tribunal’s powers to state a case for contempt, such conduct brings into question whether the Tribunal should proceed with the Application. The applicant has initiated a legal proceeding before the Tribunal, alleging violations of the Code. In bringing this Application, the applicant has initiated a process that engages the Tribunal’s resources and efforts, as well the respondents’ resources and efforts. The applicant’s conduct raises an issue about the extent of the Tribunal’s obligation to hear and determine an Application where an applicant engages in conduct that is abusive or disrespectful towards the Tribunal. Besides the insults directed at the Tribunal, the use of highly offensive language towards other participants also shows disrespect for the Tribunal. The Tribunal will not tolerate behaviour at a hearing, or directed toward an adjudicator or any other participant in these proceedings, that is offensive, abusive, or profane. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will require the applicant to confirm in writing that he will abide by the Tribunal’s expectations of appropriate language and conduct during its processes.

12The Tribunal stated that if the applicant did not provide this written assurance by the deadline ordered, the Tribunal would consider how to proceed with his Application, and may take further steps including receiving submissions on dismissal of the Application as an abuse of process.

13With their submissions, the Board respondents have provided a copy of some of the same internet materials that were before the Tribunal at the time of its September decision. They demonstrate that the applicant has not removed the text of the Application from the internet. The material, which makes bald assertions of behaviour and psychology about a personal respondent which are unrelated to an assertion of discrimination under the Code, as well as other inflammatory and irrelevant assertions, continues to identify the personal respondents. The applicant has not disputed the assertion that he has failed to remove the names of the personal respondents from his posted materials on the internet, and that the posting remains on the internet contrary to the Tribunal’s order. I find that the applicant has not complied with the Tribunal’s direction not to publish or distribute any information identifying the individual respondents to the Application.

14The applicant has also failed to provide the undertaking as directed by the Tribunal’s September decision.

15In the circumstances, I find that the applicant’s conduct warrants dismissal of the Application.

16In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 1498, the Tribunal dismissed an Application in face of the applicant’s “continued failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and the Tribunal’s directions and her failure to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite having received notice”. In LeNeve v. Point Edward Casino, 2009 HRTO 1574, the Tribunal dismissed an Application as abandoned based on conduct of the applicant amounting to a “clear expression of refusal to participate in the Tribunal’s process or communicate with the Tribunal”.

17In Dioba v. Taddeo, 2009 HRTO 1609, the Tribunal decided to adjourn the hearing of the Application until the applicant provide a written undertaking similar to that ordered in this Application. The Tribunal directed that if the applicant failed to provide his undertaking within one year of the decision, the Application would be dismissed as abandoned.

18I find that adjournment of this Application is not appropriate here. The conduct of the applicant is different from the conduct at issue in the Dioba case. I agree with the respondents’ concern that the applicant’s ongoing publication of material related to this matter on the internet is an obvious disregard for the Tribunal’s orders. The effect of his failure to comply with the direction is that material that is highly embarrassing about the individual respondents continues to be disseminated. The prejudice to the respondents is not addressed by giving the applicant a further opportunity to file an undertaking. In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it neither fair nor just to require the respondents to continue to participate in this process in the face of this applicant’s conduct.

19The Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended, provides the Tribunal with the power to “make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuse of its processes.” The ongoing refusal by the applicant to abide by the non-publication direction, and his refusal to provide an undertaking about appropriate language and conduct during the Tribunal’s processes, demonstrates his complete lack of respect for the Tribunal and the other parties. It leads to the inference that the Application has been brought for the purpose of harassing the respondents, rather than the advancement of a human rights claim.

20The Tribunal finds the conduct of the applicant to be an abuse of the Tribunal’s process and the Application is accordingly dismissed.

21In addition, the Tribunal finds that through his failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, including the provision of the undertaking, or to make any submissions as directed, the applicant has demonstrated no intent to proceed with the Application and it is also dismissed as abandoned.