HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ignacio Drenic
Applicant
-and-
The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada and City of Toronto
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Drenic v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army
INTRODUCTION
1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.
2The applicant, Ignacio Drenic, has filed various applications with the Tribunal against different respondents, under the names Nacon Dioba and Ignacio Drenic.
3Reported decisions filed by the applicant as Nacon Dioba are: Dioba v. BMO (Bank of Montreal), 2008 HRTO 325, 2009 HRTO 686; Dioba v. Toronto Public Library, 2009 HRTO 165, 2009 HRTO 433, 2009 HRTO 1503; Dioba v. Ontario (Government Services), 2009 HRTO 651, 2009 HRTO 913, 2009 HRTO 1291; Dioba v. Pusateri’s, 2009 HRTO 1140, 2009 HRTO 1297; Dioba v. Sun King Cleaners, 2009 HRTO 1458; Dioba v. Taddeo, 2009 HRTO 1609, 2009 HRTO 1889, 2009 HRTO 1975; and Dioba v. Gardio, 2009 HRTO 1682.
4Reported decisions filed by the applicant as Ignacio Drenic are: Drenic v. House of Friendship, 2008 HRTO 344, 2009 HRTO 833, 2009 HRTO 901; Drenic v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army, 2009 HRTO 1059, 2009 HRTO 1819, 2010 HRTO 514; Drenic v. YMCA of Greater Toronto, 2009 HRTO 1234; and Drenic v. Toronto (City), 2009 HRTO 1961, 2010 HRTO 483.
5Moreover, in various proceedings, including this one, the applicant has engaged in communications that have been disrespectful to and abusive of the Tribunal and other participants. Accordingly, he was required to give an undertaking to treat other parties in a respectful and courteous manner: see Dioba v. Taddeo, 2009 HRTO 1609.
6Counsel for the respondent City of Toronto has written to the Tribunal suggesting that an email dated April 20, 2010 and other e-mails the applicant has sent are in flagrant violation of the undertaking. The respondent City asks that the Application be dismissed as an abuse of process.
7In the circumstances, the Tribunal will consider the following issues:
Should this Application be dismissed as an abuse of the Tribunal’s process as a result of the applicant’s communications?
Does the Tribunal have the jurisdiction to make an order declaring an individual a vexatious litigant and prohibiting him or her from filing future applications without leave of the Tribunal?
In these circumstances, should the Tribunal make an order declaring the applicant, Ignacio Drenic aka Nacon Dioba, a vexatious litigant, and prohibiting him from filing future applications without leave of the Tribunal?
8The parties may make written submissions on the above issues. The respondents shall deliver to each other and the applicant and file with the Tribunal any submissions within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant shall deliver to the respondents and file any written submissions within four weeks of the date of this Interim Decision. If the applicant seeks to make oral submissions in accordance with s. 43(2) of the Code and Rule 3.5, he shall indicate this in his submissions and a conference call will be scheduled for this purpose.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of April, 2010.
“Signed By”
David A. Wright
Interim Chair```