Bingham v. Roach Schwartz Law Office, 2011 HRTO 15

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shawn Bingham Applicant

-and-

Roach Schwartz Law Office and S.M. Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: January 4, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 15 Indexed as: Bingham v. Roach Schwartz Law Office

1The applicant filed this Application on November 1, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in the areas of services, goods and facilities on the basis of race, sex, sexual solicitation, sexual orientation, and age.

2By way of Case Assessment Direction dated November 18, 2010, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions regarding the following two issues: (i) how the events alleged in the Application are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and (ii) whether or not the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

BACKGROUND

3The Application makes numerous incomprehensible allegations about the respondents, including neighbourhood girls planting micro-chips in the applicant’s head, spying on the applicant and “slandering (his) penis”. In addition to naming one neighbourhood girl, the current Application also names the law firm of the applicant’s legal counsel as a respondent.

4The applicant filed two previous Applications against various respondents, which were dismissed on the basis that the mistreatment alleged by the applicant was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction: see Bingham v. Peel Police, 2010 HRTO 1537 and Bingham v. Peel Regional Police, 2010 HRTO 1536.

DECISION

Jurisdiction

5The applicant filed written submissions on November 25, 2010, reiterating his concerns of a conspiracy between the local police, doctors and neighbourhood girls allegedly resulting in the applicant’s face and body being posted on the internet.

6The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code. None of the applicant’s submissions claim that the alleged treatment by the identified respondents occurred because of any of the protected grounds listed in the Code. Further, the applicant does not explain how the alleged events were perpetuated by, or are in any way related, to his legal counsel.

7In the circumstances, I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide and, accordingly, must be dismissed.

Vexatious Litigant

8In Drenic v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army, 2010 HRTO 1667, the Tribunal determined that its power to ensure the fair, just and expeditious resolution of applications gave the Tribunal the authority to declare an individual a vexatious litigant, and prevent the filing of future applications without leave, where there has been a history of past vexatious applications and/or abuse of the Tribunal’s process. Some of the factors considered by the Tribunal included the applicant’s conduct towards the Tribunal and other parties and the unsubstantiated allegations.

9This is the third Application filed by the applicant with the Tribunal in less than eight months raising nearly identical allegations. The previous Applications, like the current Application, relate to the applicant’s concerns that certain individuals, primarily neighbourhood girls, harnessed his brain power through computer signals and such signals are being used to view and slander the applicant’s penis on the internet. All of the Applications refer to pornography and the involvement of minors.

10Based on my review of the applicant’s materials, notwithstanding the dismissal of the two previous Applications, it appears that the applicant continues to attempt to institute claims which have the same unmeritorious allegations. These Applications include sexual references and lewd language and have unnecessarily named various organizations and individuals as respondents, including personal respondents who are identified in the Applications as minor children.

11Given the inappropriate nature of the applicant’s myriad of unsubstantiated allegations and the frequency of his Applications, proper control of the Tribunal’s process and protection against the abuse of that process requires the Tribunal to prevent the applicant from filing future applications without leave.

12In the circumstances, the Tribunal declares the applicant to be a vexatious litigant. As such, the applicant is required to seek leave of the Tribunal if he wishes to file future applications with the Tribunal.

13If the applicant seeks leave to commence a future application, he must include with his complete Application submissions that outline why the Application is intended as a legitimate assertion of his Code rights, is not intended to vex the respondents, and will not result in an abuse of process.

14Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.