Abdul v. University of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 2299

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Governing Council of the University of Toronto

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

York University

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Film School/Chutzpa Productions

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Mpenzi: Black Women’s International Film and Video Festival and Governing Council of the University of Toronto

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Hot Docs Management & Board

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Inside Out Film Festival

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Oxfam Canada

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Women’s College Hospital

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Human Concern International Inc

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, T. Berhanu, Heather McVicar and M. Sparks

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: December 23, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2299

Indexed as: Abdul v. University of Toronto

APPEARANCES

Hana Abdul, Applicant ) Self-represented

Governing Council of the ) Counsel, Steve Moate

University of Toronto, Respondent )

York University ) Counsel, Catherine Peters

Toronto Film School/Chutzpa ) No one appearing

Productions )

Mpenzi: Black Women’s International ) Representative, Adonica Huggins

Film and Video Festival )

Hot Docs Management & Board ) Representative, Alan Black

Inside Out Film Festival ) Representative, Scott Fergueson

Oxfam Canada ) Representative, Kristen Ostling

Women’s College Hospital ) Counsel, Janet Murdoch

Human Concern International Inc. ) Counsel, Zafir Khan

Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc. ) Counsel, Marie-Claire Lachance

City of Toronto, T. Berhanu, ) Counsel, Kalli Chapman

Heather McVicar, M. Sparks )

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision is in respect of 11 Applications filed under s. 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). All of the Applications allege discrimination in services, goods and facilities on the basis of race with one or more related grounds such as colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin and citizenship. In some of the Applications, age and/or creed is also listed as a ground. The applicant describes herself in the Applications as a Canadian citizen who is partially indigenous to “former Somalia” and Muslim. She does not state her age, but it appears that her allegations related to age are based on her belief that she is “too old for racism”.

2None of the Applications clearly describe how the respondents allegedly violated the applicant’s right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities without discrimination because of the grounds cited in the Applications. Similarly, the documents attached to the Applications do not appear to explain why the applicant believes her rights under the Code were violated.

3A consolidated summary hearing was held to determine two issues: 1) whether the Applications should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that they will succeed; and 2) whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant and barred from filing further applications without leave of the Tribunal, in accordance with the principles in Drenic v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army, 2010 HRTO 1667.

4Submissions at the summary hearing did not address whether or not the applicant was in relationships with the respondents sufficient to engage her right to equal treatment to services, goods and facilities; consequently, this Decision does not deal with whether what the respondents offered or did constituted services, goods or facilities within the meaning of the Code.

5At the commencement of the summary hearing, counsel for the respondent identified as “University of Toronto” in two of the Applications explained that the legal name for his client is “Governing Council of the University of Toronto”. The representative for the respondent identified in the Application as “Mpenzi Film Festival” clarified that the legal name for her organization is “Mpenzi: Black Women’s International Film and Video Festival”. Counsel for the respondent identified in the Application as “Human Concern” explained that his client’s legal name is “Human Concern International Inc.” Counsel for the respondent identified in the Application as “Meloche Monnex Insurance” advised that her client’s legal name is “Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc.” Counsel for the corporate respondent identified in the Application as “Toronto Employment and Social Services” advised that his client’s legal name is “City of Toronto”. The style of cause has been amended accordingly.

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPLICATIONS HAVE NO REASONABLE PROSPECT OF SUCCESS

6The Tribunal issued various Case Assessment Directions (“CADs”) in relation to the Applications, directing that the Applications be consolidated for the summary hearing held on October 18, 2011. The CADs generally directed the Applicant to be prepared to explain why the events or communications described in her Applications resulted in discrimination contrary to the Code. The CADs also referred to Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which state as follows:

19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.

7In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, the Tribunal made the following comments about summary hearings, at paras. 7-10:

A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened.

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

8In considering what evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, the Tribunal must be attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, information about the reasons for the actions taken by a respondent are within the sole knowledge of the respondent. Evidence about the reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process and through cross-examination of the people involved. The Tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. However, when there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities, the application must be dismissed.

9The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an application to continue in the Tribunal’s process there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17.

10Many of the following paragraphs contain quotations from documents created by the applicant who sometimes provided information in handwriting. Each quotation reproduces, as accurately as possible, exactly what appears in the documents, even if there appear to be incongruities of grammar, syntax or punctuation.

i) Application against Governing Council of the University of Toronto, File #2011-08352-I

11This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, creed and age. In answering the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant wrote:

Extremely offended by a racist event taking place at a university which was appropriate in 1979 but not today. ‘Somali communities – histories of war and prosecution’ – I’m not new to the country. Ask these people to cite a book. I want to know who is advising on this event?

12In the space on the Application entitled, “Other Important Information the Tribunal Should Know,” the applicant wrote:

I’m filing this complaint because I know that for 30 years very few (if any) trained academics researchers, environmentalists, lawyers (Canadian) have actually visited other countries or knows the social or environmental issues. See if you can find a book and it’s 2011.

13The applicant attached a flyer to the Application which advertised a symposium on urban education entitled “Institutions out of Sync: Pressure Points for Change.” The speakers were not described in terms of their race or cultural communities, but were listed as the Executive Director of the Roma Community Centre in Toronto, a research chair at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (“OISE”), a professor from the Faculty of Social Work, and a PhD candidate at OISE. The flyer described the event as follows:

It is time to take a cold, hard look at institutions of education. Addressing the complexity of needs that other students bring? Can we? How can schools become places that do not merely reflect but interrupt the growing forces of social inequality in our neighborhoods? Our panelists will engage in a critical discussion exploring some of the pressure points currently facing educators in Toronto schools. Bringing social-spatial and pedagogical research to the problems of discrimination widely experienced by many new immigrant groups in Toronto, the panelists will provide empirical illustrations of the current realities facing the Roma and Somali communities, two groups that bring with them histories and contemporary realities of war and persecution. The Center for Urban Schooling, we persistently question how teachers learn to respond to the ever-changing and difficult realities of urban classrooms. Our panel of esteemed researchers and community activists will engage us in lively debate and push our thinking in new directions.

14The Application indicates that the applicant is seeking $190,000 in monetary compensation. In response to the question asking how this amount was calculated, the Application indicates a brief explanation which does not appear related to the amount indicated: “I’ve been involved in education for 20 years. I read history and geography.”

15Prior to the summary hearing, the applicant filed written submissions and images from the Internet, most of which appear to be related directly or indirectly to war around the world. In the submissions, she makes statements like, “The fact is this rhetoric of war/prosecutions and Somali communities is at this point in history beyond ‘problematic’.” She claims that the University of Toronto has not developed “an environment for international education” for many years for a number of reasons. She wrote:

9. Now the reality is that I live in the illusion that we are all equal in this country. So if that is the case, why don’t I see 21 years of events dealing with war and prosecutions about other countries? The nature of the arugment here is that philosophy, art, language, history, math, science, law, psychology, religion, international relations, business and engineering are areas of thinking and each of them is connected to a region of the world. What has OISE offered for 21 years? “Somali community war and prosecution”. I am not suggesting or implying the notion of change. I am wondering about perspective.

10. Who are the top thinkers of OISE? Who are the legal experts at the University of Toronto? What areas of the world have they provided legal advice and support to?

11. This event offends me. I see it as a racial/creed “attack” for lack of a better term.

12. Fact: Is war and prosecution not good for business?

13. The above images are all connected to “war and prosecution”. Now, I do not know if any of the people in the pictures have a law degrees from the University of Toronto or won any scholarships or have provided legal consultation to anyone involved in war and prosecution.

14. Does the Respondent know who started the rhetoric of “Somali community” war and prosecutions? Do you know if any of those people had Law Degrees from Harvard or U of T and were gossiping to the Canadian parliament or the US parliament? Do you know if any of those people had two or three jobs such as advising on policy in the army and at the same time sitting on the NFB, CBC, Glove and Mail and U of T scholarship committees or the arts? Do you know if any of their friends were war photographers in Africa? This is of course all from the 90s. So pardon me if I am filing a Human Rights complaint in 2011 about an event on “war and prosecutions”?

15. Does the Respondent know if for the last 20 years, there has ever been a single academic with curriculum vitae? A Tribunal ordered inquiry will most likely highlight that every aspect of your university… has always been based on problematic and questionable factors…

16. When a particular rhetoric is around for 10 or 20 years one wonders if there is something interesting about “war and prosecutions”? In reality, there is nothing interesting about “war and prosecutions” as it lacks the design to create this garden [reference to an image from the internet of a well manicured garden]. Moreover, when a tragedy takes place, the normal human response is to mourn. The irony of the rhetoric of “war and prosecution” is that it has the ability to turn anger into hate without creating space for one to mourn.

17. I am not asking for or implying “change”, I am inquiring about perspective.

16While the applicant’s written submission appears to presume some sort of knowledge on the part of the Tribunal, I was unable to find an explanation in them of why exactly holding the symposium or posting the flyer for it constitutes discrimination.

17When asked why exactly the applicant thought the flyer or the event was discriminatory, the applicant said that the flyer is offensive because it targets communities of Roma and Somalia, and does not accurately describe Toronto and Ontario. She argued that the flyer provides a rhetoric on war and violence, and that it is speaking for communities that are race-based. She stated that she is relying on her written submissions which are summarized above.

18In the absence of any further explanation as to why the flyer or the event are discriminatory, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. Merely advertising a forum that will explore social inequalities in race-based communities cannot in itself be considered a violation of the Code. The applicant did not describe any evidence upon which she intended to rely to link the event or flyer with the alleged prohibited grounds listed in her Application. This Application is dismissed.

ii) Application against York University, File #2011-08516-I

19This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, age and creed. In answering the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant wrote, “See attached flyer in the name of ‘education’.”

20The flyer advertises that two professors will speak about “The Fulbright Experience”. The first speaker’s topic is advertised as “Turquoise, Water and Sky: My Experience as a Fulbright Research Chair in Creative Writing” and the second speaker’s topic as “Human Rights as a Trojan Horse: On Being a Fulbright at Yale and N.Y.U.”

21The Application indicates that the event being advertised by the flyer was racist because “it prioritizes America” by having an American flag on it, and because by having an American event, York University is reminding us “that America and Canada are two different countries.” With respect to the allegation of discrimination on the basis of age, the Application indicates: “A little too old for racism from America.”

22The Application indicates that the applicant is seeking $5 million in monetary compensation for the emotional damage she claims the flyer caused.

23The applicant filed written submissions prior to the summary hearing, but they do not appear to explain why the event or the flyer for the event might reasonably be considered discriminatory:

2. The Applicant is a graduate of York University and has over 4years of dealing with racism though has not filed a complaint throughout those years. She is in a position now to look at York and its former faculty, staff, and ideas of education and laugh at the amount of evidence she has collected over the years on discrimination.

3. With respect to this complaint: The Applicant does not know what the American flag is doing at York University? Is it because 90% of York is European-American? Or is York University a research and learning environment for American issues like planetary research and the Arts? Both of which have migrated from the US since none of which has been in this country for 17+ years. The Applicant is not sure if Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon in 1969 and does not know the difference between art in Bari, Italy and art in Cordoba.

4. Regarding the event that generated this event: Now, in addition to finding the American flag inappropriate at a Canadian university and I support arthritis research and cure - What I find strange about this event is its title "human Rights as Trojan horse".

5. As someone who respects the work that is being done with regards to human rights in Ontario, I have to admit, none of us are stupid and we all know that Trojan horse is associated with Greek mythology. I'm sure we all remember Hercules, Zeus, Apollo and the Titans narratives.

6. In case York intellectuals did not know, there is a book called "The Menace of Multiculturalism: Trojan Horse in America" by Alvin J. Schmidt and it is fair to assume that it is reflecting on racial issues in America for the main "ethnic" groups which the Applicant is not a part of.

7. The Applicant does not know why York University prioritizes America and Greece which is an assumption the Applicant is making as a result of this event "Human Rights as Trojan Horse"

8. The Applicant is also making an assumption that York university discriminates in every respect:Academic funding, research, employment, scholarships and events

9. The Applicant has been in this province for over 17years and is not sure when York University become an American university.

10. What is the purpose of an American event whose tille is "Human Rights as a Trojan Horse" but to remind one of the facts that America and Canada are two different countries and share very little similarities.

11. Fact: The term Trojan Horse has been used repeated to capture social discomfort with addressing inequality. Furthermore, the entire concept of a Trojan Horse is based on race/ethnicitylreligion and it originated from Greece. So what does this event telling the Applicant? Answer is simple: That York University is creating events to continue its history of discrimination. The Applicant is not American or Greek.

12. The Applicant does not doubt that York is a great learning environment. However, what the Applicant is arguing is to what extent of York University is based on other countries and whether "intellectual expansion" is actually good for "human rights". Please remember that people of the Applicant's ethnic/race/creed background do not have the power to vote in Greece and the Applicant suspects that Greece mayor may not have its own racist laws around citizenship. The Applicant doesn't know if European-Americans are likely to be approved of citizenship in Greece than "visible minority" Americans? In Summary, Greece, America and Canada are separate countries with no economic ties to one another or rather this is the assumption the Applicant has decided to utilize. The Applicant does not know if in the past, Greece, America and Canada had disputes or fought one another. The Applicant realizes that Greece, America and Canada are all diverse countries with all sorts of inter-ethnic-race-creed issues.

13. Fact: The "Human Rights as a Trojan Horse" event at best is a reminder of three facts: that Human Rights, America and Trojan Horse have very little in common…

14. Lastly, the Applicant is aware of the fact that she lives in Canada - not America, Greece or Dadaab. The Applicant does not know if our millions of Americans and Greeks are from Europe or Africa. Perhaps York University should formally start prioritizing funding initiatives that research the migration patterns of the Greeks and Americans.

24In her oral submissions at the summary hearing, the applicant argued that because there is no Fulbright in Canada, the event was American and it portrays York University as an institution that is not relevant or tangible to Canada. When it was pointed out to her that the flyer also contained a Canadian flag, she seemed to be noticing it for the first time.

25In the absence of any further explanation as to why the flyer or the event are discriminatory, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. Merely advertising a York University event at which speakers will describe their experiences as Fulbright scholars in the United States cannot in itself be considered a violation of the Code. The applicant appears to take the position that the image of the American flag and that the reference to the Trojan Horse, in the title of one of the topics, means that the discussion she assumed took place at the event did not encompass many countries. What the applicant alleges, even if true, may not be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation, and there is no evidence to link the event or the flyer with the alleged grounds. This Application is dismissed.

iii) Application against Toronto Film School/Chutzpa Productions, File #2011-08517-I

26This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry, colour and ethnic origin. In answering the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant wrote, “Asked the respondent to remove inaccurate information from 2003/2004 from his work website and will not.” The Application goes on to explain that what the applicant wants removed from the respondent’s website are “short fake films”. The only remedy that the applicant seeks in this Application is the removal of the information from the website.

27The applicant filed written submissions prior to the summary hearing. One paragraph states, “The Applicant suspects that Mr. Hecht [the editor] was ‘targeting’ out of those pictures because of race and creed of the people in it.” The submissions, however, do not appear to explain what exactly she considers to be discriminatory on the website, (she refers to “information” which may include the images she mentions above), nor why the respondent’s refusal to remove what she objects to is discriminatory.

28In her oral submissions at the summary hearing, the applicant explained that the respondent’s website contains a trailer for a film that she made, and this trailer is on the website “because of the actors, but I [the applicant] will not talk about their colour or race.” She stated that she is not sure if the presence of the trailer or the “short fake films” is racist as it may be that the respondent does not have the ability to remove them from the website.

29In the absence of any further explanation as to why the presence of the trailer or the “short fake films” on the respondent’s website is discriminatory, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. What the applicant alleges, even if true, may not be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. There is no evidence to link the website’s inclusion of the trailer or the “short fake films” with the alleged grounds, nor is there any evidence to link any refusal by the respondent to remove them with the alleged grounds. This Application is dismissed.

iv) Application against Mpenzi:Black Women’s International Film and Video Festival and Governing Council of the University of Toronto, File #2011-08543-I

30This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry, colour and place of origin. In answering the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant referred to attached e-mails which document the applicant’s requests that references to or screenings of a film she made be removed from a website. The e-mails are between the applicant and the Program Director of Mpenzi:Black Women’s International Film and Video Festival (“the Film Festival”). The e-mails show that the Program Director communicated to the applicant that the references would not be removed from her organization’s website and that the applicant had provided written permission with respect to what they could do with her film. The Application states, “I’m asking for something simple and if I was from their home countries, there wouldn’t be a issue.”

31The applicant implies in the Application that the Governing Council of the University of Toronto is named as a respondent because it funds the Film Festival and not other groups: “University of Toronto should support festivals as popular as Akon and not a festival that isn’t treating people as human beings.”

32The applicant is seeking $4 million in monetary compensation.

33The applicant filed written submissions prior to the summary hearing which are an attempt to explain the reason the applicant wanted the reference to her film removed from the Film Festival’s website:

5. As per the emails, the Applicant asked the Respondents to remove the short film screening from the website after seeing post-cards of the festival’s current program. The Applicant found it suspicious that information about an old screening was still on the website when the festival post-cards were marketing current programs…

6. The Applicant does not dispute that the festival had a submission agreement form and recognizes that the job of a festival is to promote their films and documentaries on post-cards and on websites for the purpose of selling tickets. However, this screening took place at least three years ago and the festival had screened other (and perhaps amazing) films and documentaries since this short film screening

7. The Applicant still does not know why a short little film about homophobia, Islamiaphobia and other social issues joblessness and gentrification would be on a website of a festival that has been creating what the applicant supposes are great programs

8. The Applicant does not know the festival's relationship to TIFF and why some America is reviewing a short film when the applicant already had a review on a website. Also the Applicant does not know if the decision to put her short film on TIFF offensive website helped actually sell tickets for the black women's festival

34The submissions, however, do not appear to link the grounds alleged with the applicant’s objection to the website’s inclusion of dated material (the applicant’s own film). The submissions do not make any reference to the University of Toronto.

35The applicant was invited to make oral submissions at the summary hearing to explain what evidence she had to prove that the refusal to remove the reference to her film from the website is because of her race, ancestry, colour and place of origin. She declined to do so.

36In the absence of any further explanation as to why the refusal to remove reference to the applicant’s film from the Film Festival’s website constitutes discrimination, I find that this Application against the Film Festival and the University of Toronto has no reasonable prospect of success. What the applicant alleges, even if true, may not be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. There is no evidence to link the refusal to remove any reference to or inclusion of the applicant’s film from the Film Festival’s website with the alleged grounds. This Application is dismissed.

v) Application against Hot Docs Management and Board, File #2011-08697-I

37This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry, colour, place of origin and age. In answering the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant wrote, “See attached flyer, offensive and racist and inappropriate. Warlords and pirates?” As additional information, the applicant wrote, “Hot docs does not support or endorse any Senegalese politicians in Canada, yet have placed focus on ‘warlords, pirates, Islamists’ in their programming last 10 years.”

38Although the applicant did not indicate creed as a ground on her Form 1 of the Application, she completed the box on Form 1-C, included for applicants alleging discrimination on the basis of creed. The Form directs, “Explain why you believe you were discriminated against based on your creed.” The applicant unexplainably wrote, “I don’t know. I don’t think so. I didn’t ask.”

39In answer to the question on the Application about why she believes she was discriminated against because of age, the applicant wrote, “I’m too old for racism. The racist language being used is from 20 years ago.”

40The “flyer” that the applicant attached to her Application is actually a description of the film, “The Pirate Tapes”, which states the following:

A tale of violence, piracy and environmental disaster spirals into a life-threatening situation when Mohammed, a young Somali-Canadian, joins an armed pirate cell with a hidden camera. But when a rival clan murders the pirate boss, Mohammed ends up in a horrific jail in danger of execution. Interspersed with riveting never-before-seen footage of pirates organizing a hijacking, the film peels back layers of civil war, history and corruption that turned once peaceful fishermen into marauders. Massive illegal fishing by Asian and European ships decimated fish stocks, international corporations made secret deals with warlords so they could dump their nuclear wastes off the Somali coast, and politicians siphoned foreign aid into their personal accounts. But the moral justification of retaliation has morphed into a violent, complex, money-driven operation, one that both pirates and politicians exposed as a multimillion-dollar business funded primarily by foreigners who reap most of the profit.

41The Application indicates the applicant is seeking $10 million in monetary compensation, but provides no explanation for calculating this amount other than the statement, “It’s not 1983. This is racist.”

42The applicant filed written submissions prior to the summary hearing. The opening paragraph clarifies that the Application is in response to the respondent screening the film. Most of the paragraphs in the submissions ask questions or simply state that the applicant does not know answers to many questions. For example, the applicant wrote:

7. The applicant does not know if everyone at hot docs moved to Canada from the US for the "arts" funding only to program racist offensive documentaries

8. The applicant does not know how Hot Docs relationship to members of Parliament (current and past) in the US or Canada or other countries - in other words, is this a new generation of "winners" living on the prayer that they will somehow attract Michael Moore fans of 5million people into a theater for a racist documentary film about "warlords"?

43The applicant's closing paragraphs imply that it is the flyer to which she objects:

19. Images 1: Below you will find a photo men fighting [the applicant includes an image from a magazine of people who appear to be African men in military uniform holding guns]: Where exactly did Hot Docs get the idea that it is okay to use the term "warlords" in the second ever documentary film that claims to be filmed in "Somalia" to screen at the festival?

20. The Applicant does not know if Hot Docs are the children, wives and husbands of US military personnel, the CIA, FBI, US Marshal (in other words 5 races/ethnicities/creeds) who may or may not have participated in war crimes in the last 50years? The applicant would like to remind respondents that this is human rights complaint simply because there is a long history to this kind of racism and it is no longer acceptable.

44The submissions do not explain why the screening of a film about subjects including warlords or the posting of a film description that includes the term “warlords” discriminates against the applicant on the basis of her race, ancestry, colour, place of origin and age.

45In her oral submissions at the summary hearing, the applicant stated that, generally, the rhetoric of war prosecution is racist, but could not explain why or point to anything specifically that made her think so.

46The description of the documentary film appears to criticize Asian and European people, or “foreigners”, as much as it does the individuals in Somali captured by the Somali-Canadian film-maker’s camera. It does not appear to discriminate against the applicant by, for example, portraying a stereotypical account of persons from the applicant’s ethnic origin. What the applicant alleges, even if true, may not be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. In the absence of any further explanation as to why the flyer or film description or screening of the film is discriminatory, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. There is no indication that the applicant has evidence to link the flyer or the screening of the film with the alleged grounds. This Application is dismissed.

vi. Application against Inside Out Film Festival, File #2011-09231-I

47This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin and creed. In answering the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant wrote, “See civil litigation papers. Organization created a video and claims I mentored a University of Toronto student.”

48Attached to the Application is a Statement of Claim, naming the same respondent, and appearing to involve similar facts. The applicant claims the respondent is giving her credit or thanking her for mentoring a film student when she does not consider herself to have mentored the student because their relationship was not created and structured as the applicant would have liked it to have been. Also attached is a series of e-mails between the student and the applicant in which the student explains to the applicant that while she understands that the applicant wants to be “completely removed from the project,” the student does not have the money or resources to remove from the film the applicant’s name on the list of people that the student would like to thank. The Application implies that the matter is no longer proceeding at Small Claims Court because it was settled.

49In specifically answering the Application Form’s question about why she believes she was discriminated against because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin, the applicant wrote, “Do they know the difference between the blacks, the whites, the Asians and other groups?”

50In response to the Application Form’s question about why she believes she was discriminated against based on her creed, the applicant wrote, “Muslim. Ask them about the Nigerian, Ghana, Zambian muslims.”

51The Application indicates that the applicant is seeking $2 million in monetary compensation or an apology.

52The applicant filed written submissions prior to the summary hearing which make some reference to the grounds cited in the Application, but they mainly pose questions or state that the applicant does not have knowledge of how exactly the respondent operates and what their internal decisions or methods have been:

8. The Applicant does not know the program coordinator’s relationship to the people who signed up for the program or why she (Natalyn) would coordinate a "mentorship" program when she doesn't know what the term "mentorship" means or has a relationship to the organizations in the country that have websites that state they are a "mentorship" organization looking to "mentor" people.

9. The Applicant does not understand why the program coordinator (Natalyn) didn't work with university of Toronto professors and TA’s that have been teaching courses gender, race, class and sexuality and would rather target the Applicant based on the fact that the Applicant at that time completing a documentary film about race and education. The “mentoree” that Natalyn chose was at the time university of Toronto student.

10. The Applicant has concerns about race/ethnicity/creed - It is the Applicant's understanding the diversity might have been a concern within the group: for example, Natalyn (a possibly German-French-Dutch-Italian-Polish-Spanish program coordinator) didn't even inform the program creator Winnie Luk (an Asian woman) about the fact that she contacted me for the "mentorship" program. (see e-mail correspondences). Also, the Applicant did not have an opportunity to even speak to Natalyn about any issues related to race, ethnicity, creed, and so forth. Furthermore, the Applicant recalls leaving a voicemail for Natalyn at that time but does not remember her phone call being returned.

11. The applicant is concerned that Insight Out Film Festival during their program didn't address any concerns around race/ethnicity/creed/place of origins - in other words, did Inside Out film festival even have a discussion amongst one another about those issues?

12. The applicant does not know if Natalyn, the program coordinator knows the difference between the Christians and the Muslims?

53The submissions appear to relate to a period in 2009 when the applicant had some role, as a mentor or otherwise, in advising or communicating with a film student connected to the respondent. They do not explain why exactly the respondent’s treatment of the applicant might constitute discrimination. Instead, the submissions imply that the reason for the Application is the applicant’s assumption that the respondent did NOT take into account the grounds identified when the respondent suggested and supported a mentorship relationship between the applicant and the student.

54In her oral submissions at the summary hearing, the applicant said that she was alleging discrimination because she did not meet with the programme co-ordinator of the mentoring programme, and she does not know why they picked her as a potential mentor.

55What the applicant alleges, even if true, may not be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. Also, the applicant has not suggested that she has any evidence to link the alleged grounds with the respondent’s dealings with the applicant. Nor has the applicant suggested that she has any evidence to link the alleged grounds with any refusal by the respondent to remove or assist in removing the applicant’s name from the acknowledgement list in the student’s film. In the absence of any further explanation as to why what is described in the Application constitutes discrimination, I find that this Application against Inside Out Film Festival has no reasonable prospect of success. I also find that filing it is particularly vexing to the respondent as discussed below. This Application is dismissed.

vii. Application against Oxfam Canada, File # 2011-09517-I

56This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin and citizenship. In answering the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant wrote:

Please see Oxfam Canada website. wants to know where in “East Africa” these people have been visiting last 30 years. The famine images are offensive and racist. Where are these people’s home countries?

57Where the Application Form asks for an explanation as to why the applicant believes she was discriminated against because of race, ancestry, place of origin and citizenship, the applicant wrote, “The photos on their website are racist and offensive. They should take a picture of Ottawa or their home countries of Europe.”

58Attached to the Application is a page from the respondent’s website which has two photos to which the applicant has drawn arrows. One is a photograph of three people, who appear African. There is a caption beside the photograph that reads, “East Africa food crisis”. The people appear to be well, and may be farmers. Another photograph appears to contain the image of an African girl standing on dry land. She appears to have folded her arms over her head, probably to protect her eyes from the sun. Her image is beside a caption that reads, “Famine in Somalia; what needs to be done”. It is unclear as to why either photograph is included on the website, but neither appears to be racist. near the arrow pointing to the photograph of the girl, the applicant has written, “These pictures seem Kenya to me?”

59While the Application indicates that the applicant is seeking monetary compensation, no amount is specified. Non-monetary remedies are indicated, however, whereby the applicant seeks to have the respondent stop using the words “East Africa” or referring to “Somalia” and to not “use images of ‘East Africa’.”

60Prior to the summary hearing, the applicant filed written submissions, and included images that do not appear to have been on the respondent’s website, but rather, the applicant appears to have gathered them from the internet and included them to provide her view of history on “the rhetoric on war, poverty, hunger and helping ‘Africa’.” The submissions state at the beginning that the applicant does not know “a lot about Oxfam’s international projects/work,” and most of the submissions’ paragraphs are questions. The questions range from asking about the respondent’s relationship with the Canadian government and the governments of the countries they help, to questions about the personal characteristics of “the people of Oxfam” or whether they have law degrees. Nowhere in the submissions is there any indication that the applicant has evidence that the respondent’s website or work is racist.

61At the summary hearing, the applicant said that she would not provide oral submissions and would instead rely on her written submissions and Application. The applicant has not indicated any evidence that she has or that is reasonably available to her to link the alleged grounds with the respondent’s website page provided by the applicant. What the applicant describes as content on the respondent’s website, even if true, may not be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. In the absence of any further explanation as to why what is described in the Application constitutes discrimination, I find that this Application against Oxfam Canada has no reasonable prospect of success. This Application is dismissed.

viii. Application against Women’s College Hospital, File #2011-09518-I

62This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin and citizenship. In answer to the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant wrote that she is complaining about a racist event that the respondent allegedly held, and referred to an attachment with the comment, “the woman in the ‘Horn of Africa’ story is from 3 years ago.”

63Attached to the Application is what appears to be a print-out of an electronic, public invitation to an event called “Hunger, Politics, Climate Change & Food Security in the Horn of Africa” at the Women’s College Hospital. There is no narrative or story describing the event. A small photograph can be seen on the invitation. It appears to depict approximately ten African women with children, standing in a line somewhere outside, but it is not clear why they are standing in the line. On its face, the photograph does not appear to be discriminatory.

64Where the Application Form indicates that the applicant is to explain why she believes she was discriminated against because of race, ancestry, place of origin and citizenship, the applicant wrote, “The event is offensive and racist. Where are all these people from? The image alone is offensive and racist.”

65The Application indicates the following with respect to remedy sought:

$100,000… not to me but for the hospital to hire doctors with medical degrees who have experience with arthritis in Canada. List of doctors accepting new patients would be good. … do not organize or host events with photos of “East Africa women”. Take a picture of male/female doctors who have written books on arthritis.

66The applicant also indicated on the Application that the “job of a hospital is to find cures and help people in Ontario. Where is the cure for arthritis?”

67Submissions filed by the applicant prior to the summary hearing imply that the allegations are with regards to the image on the invitation or flyer described above, and with regards to the hosting of the event itself. With respect to the allegation that the photograph is discriminatory, the applicant argues as follows:

The flyer of the event is of a group of women – supposedly “women in the horn of Africa” all holding “bastard” children – pardon my use of the term “bastards” but this image is a 40 year stereo type of “Horn of Africa” – basically women with “bastard” children due to rape, war, poverty and climate change

68With respect to the allegation that the hosting of the event is discriminatory, the applicant provided the following paragraphs:

The Applicant does not know why Women’s College Hospital – an employer and research environment is hosting an event and if the idea here is the hospital is “helping women and children in Africa”.

The Applicants assumes that this event is perhaps connected to the larger issue of the way the hospital is doing “business” and providing essential “services” to people in need of help

Job of a hospital is to accomplish three main objectives:

a. Through health based research to create cures using up-to-date facilities

b. Hiring doctors and specialists

c. Listening to patients and responding to patients within a timely manner

69The applicant concludes wanting to know “how this event (and its image) is creating business for the hospital or highlighting the essential services the hospital is providing to people.” The submissions contain many more paragraphs in which she asks or implies questions about the staff and work they are doing, sometimes in relation to Africa and sometimes in relation to arthritis, including whether there are “publications on the relationship between bone density decrease/increase and its direct relationship to Arthritis.”

70At the summary hearing, the applicant said that she would not provide oral submissions and would instead rely on her written submissions and Application. It would appear that the applicant would like me to conclude from the photograph that the women holding children are to be understood as single, and their children “bastards”, and therefore that the respondent has stereotyped them in an image that is racially derogatory. I do not see that the applicant has any evidence to establish that the children have no fathers as claimed by the applicant or that the respondent’s use of this photograph was an attempt to portray these children as having no fathers. Even if she had such evidence, I find that there is no reasonable prospect of success for an analysis that alleges discrimination for showing a photograph of women with children who have no fathers as a result of “rape, war, poverty and climate change.” Similarly, I find that there is no reasonable prospect of success for the allegation that the mere hosting of an event to help women and children in Africa is discriminatory. This Application is dismissed.

ix. Application against Human Concern International Inc., File #2011-09696-I

71This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry and place of origin. In answering the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant wrote:

Why the racial profiling photo on the “Somali Toronto” Community? Why is this organization in Africa now?

72Attached to the Application is a photograph that the applicant claims is from the respondent’s website. It is an image of people who mostly appear to be African women, some with infants, seated under a sign that reads, “Somali drought relief aid, sponsored by Human Concern International and the Toronto-Edmonton Somali Community.” No racial profiling is apparent.

73Where the Application Form indicates that the applicant is to explain why she believes she was discriminated against because of race, colour, ancestry and place of origin, the applicant wrote, “Who are these people and where are their home countries?”

74The Application indicates that the applicant is seeking $200,000, but the explanation for the amount is actually two questions the applicant poses. They do not appear to be a justification for the calculation of $200,000.

75Submissions filed by the applicant prior to the summary hearing clarify that the allegations are with regards to an image on the respondent’s website, presumably the photograph attached to the Application, that the applicant believes is a “racially profiling” image. The submissions, however, contain 23 paragraphs that each begin with “the Applicant does not know” or “the Applicant is not aware” followed by what appear to be phrases implying that the respondent is not familiar with any definable Somali community in Toronto.

76At the summary hearing, the applicant said that she would not provide oral submissions and would instead rely on her written submissions and Application. The applicant has not indicated any evidence that she has or has reasonably available to her which can link the alleged grounds with the respondent’s website image provided by the applicant. Even if that image and caption is indeed a part of the respondent’s website, it may not be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. In the absence of any further explanation as to why what is described in the Application constitutes discrimination, I find that this Application against Human Concern International Inc. has no reasonable prospect of success. This Application is dismissed.

x) Application against Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc, File # 2011-09717-I

77This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry and citizenship. In answering the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant wrote the words, “My insurance increased,” and then posed questions, indicating that she does not know why.

78Where the Application Form indicates that the applicant is to explain why she believes she was discriminated against because of race, ancestry and citizenship, the applicant wrote, “I have no idea who is writing the charts/graphs and which ethnicities/languages are even employed.”

79The Application indicates that the applicant is seeking reduced premiums in remedy.

80Submissions filed by the applicant prior to the summary hearing clarify that the applicant believes that a recent increase to the cost of her automobile insurance is discriminatory; however, the submissions contain questions posed by the applicant which clearly indicate that the applicant has no idea why the respondent increased the cost of her insurance.

81At the summary hearing, the applicant agreed that she has no idea why her insurance premiums increased. She did not make reference to any evidence that the respondent knew what her race, ancestry or citizenship are or any evidence that her premiums did not go up for people who do not share her race, ancestry or citizenship.

82In the circumstances, where the applicant cannot point to any link whatsoever between her increased premiums and the alleged grounds, there is no reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground. The applicant’s allegations amount to a bare assertion of differential treatment based on prohibited grounds. I therefore find that this Application against Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc. has no reasonable prospect of success. This Application is dismissed.

xi) Application against City of Toronto, Mrs. Berhany, MacVicar and Sparks, File #2011-09740

83This Application alleges discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry and age. In answering the question on the Application about what happened, the applicant wrote, “After 1 month my financial assistance is suspended for no reason.”

84Where the Application Form indicates that the applicant is to explain why she believes she was discriminated against because of race and ancestry, the applicant wrote, “Ask the case worker about her home country and if this a reaction to ethiopia.”

85Where the Application Form indicates that the applicant is to explain why she believes she was discriminated against because of age, the applicant wrote, “During the assessment in July, she mentioned I looked young.”

86It may be that the case worker, presumably one of the women named as a personal respondent, is perceived by the applicant to be Ethiopian, but the applicant at no time confirmed this. In the context of a Request by the applicant to expedite her Application, she wrote to the Tribunal:

…The three women named in the application, Ethiopian, Italian and Greek, women and their Greek male counter parts do not have the legal right to withhold someone’s financial assistance after a month. All these girls and boys earn salaries of $50,000+ and benfiting from this country’s racial hierarchies… These girls and boys can run for office and formally represent the Parliaments of their home countries where they are taking vacations on regular basis.

87The Application indicates that the applicant is seeking the reinstatement of benefits and $3,000 in monetary compensation to address emotional stress and what appears to be the loss of a vacation.

88Submissions filed by the applicant prior to the summary hearing imply that the allegedly discriminatory suspension of financial assistance is in reference to the suspension of her Ontario Works benefits. Her submissions, however, are very difficult to follow. They begin:

1. Fact: The Applicant did not create OW.

2. Fact: The Applicant does not know who attended the Legislative Assembly of 97/98 from Ontario or any other province or international countries. The Applicant does not know if the members of the Legislative Assembly of 97/98 are currently back to their home countries of Vienna, Germany, Italia, Poland, Asia, Mediterranean or Africa

3. Fact: The applicant does not know the salaries of the members of the Legislative Assembly of 97/98 perhaps $240,000/year or if they all had law degrees and spoke European and liked African music and Bob Marley?

89The applicant’s written submissions continue in this vein, constantly indicating that she does not know something, but at the same time implying some conspiracy to the point where she declares that she considers the Legislative Assembly of 97/98 unconstitutional; however, the questions posed by the applicant in her submissions are void of any evidence to link the suspension of her benefits in 2011 to the alleged grounds.

90At the summary hearing, the applicant stated that she relied on her Application and written submissions.

91The applicant cannot point to any link whatsoever between any suspension of her benefits and her race or ancestry. The only reference to her age, a “mention” that the applicant does not look her age, does not appear to have any link to a reason for the suspension of benefits. In the circumstances, where the applicant cannot point to any evidence related to the allegations other than a mention that she was told she looks young for her age, there is no reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited grounds. I therefore find that this Application against the City of Toronto, Mrs. Berhany, MacVicar and Sparks has no reasonable prospect of success. This Application is dismissed.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND SHOULD BE BARRED FROM FILING FURTHER APPLICATIONS WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL

92In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated September 6, 2011 related to most of the files dealt with in this Decision, the Tribunal noted the following:

In addition to these 10 Applications, the applicant has filed numerous other Applications with the Tribunal that have been dismissed: see Abdul v. University of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 97; Abdul v. University of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 98; Abdul v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2011 HRTO 813; Abdul v. Inside Out Toronto, 2011 HRTO 824; Abdul v. New Democratic Party Caucus Services, 2011 HRTO 863; Abdul v. CTV Corporation; 2011 HRTO 1123; Abdul v. Toronto International Film Festival, 2011 HRTO 1361; Abdul v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1578. The applicant has filed three other Applications that have been withdrawn and a further two Applications are under reserve by the adjudicator following a summary hearing in June 2011.

93I note that one of the decisions cited in the CAD involves the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario as a respondent. I note that the matter was dismissed after the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the allegations, and the applicant wrote to the Tribunal, stating in part, “I accept the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss this case.”

94Since that CAD of September 6, 2011, the applicant filed an Application which was consolidated with the ten before me at the summary hearing held October 18, 2011. All eleven are dismissed in this Decision.

95The applicant subsequently filed an additional two Applications which were not included in the summary hearing held before me. One is against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a respondent in one of the Applications referred to in the CAD that was dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over federal matters. The other is against RBC Canada. The Tribunal sent to the applicant Notices of Intent to Dismiss these recently filed Applications on the basis that they appear to be federal matters over which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Separate decisions shall be issued to deal with the jurisdictional issue in those Applications.

96Of her other Applications filed at the Tribunal, except those she has withdrawn, all have been dismissed. The two Applications referred to in the CAD as under reserve were against York University and the University of Waterloo. They have now been dismissed after a summary hearing in June 2011. The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove, on a balance of probabilities, that her Code rights were violated by either of the respondents.

Repeated Applications Against Same Respondents

97With respect to the previously filed Application against York University, she alleged that she had applied for a position, but was not invited for an interview because of her race, ancestry and ethnic origin. The Tribunal found that the applicant’s allegation of discrimination was merely speculative, and there did not appear to be anything in the material that would support the applicant’s allegations. See Abdul v. York University, 2011 HRTO 1851. Reconsideration was denied. See Abdul v. York University, 2011 HRTO 1999.

98With respect to the University of Toronto, she filed two previous Applications against it alleging discrimination because she “cannot get an interview” for employment. See Abdul v. University of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 97 and Abdul v. University of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 98. Both Applications were dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to respond to the Registrar’s Notices of Intent to Dismiss. Both Notices indicated that the Applications appeared to be out of time and failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

99With respect to Inside Out Film Festival, the applicant filed a previous Application against an organization called “Inside Out Toronto” which was dismissed. See Abdul v. Inside Out Toronto, 2011 HRTO 824. The two respondents are obviously the same entity because the applicant used the same address for both Inside Out Film Festival and Inside Out Toronto. As well, she indicated in each Application that Winnie Luk was the respondent’s employee. I shall henceforth refer to the entity as “Inside Out”. The first Application against Inside Out involved an allegation that a mentorship program run by the respondent in 2009 was discriminatory because the applicant was never informed of the dates, times and location of the workshops. She claims that the “entire thing was racialized.” The Tribunal found that previously filed Application against Inside Out to be out of time, and I note the references to the facts in the Decision dismissing it:

4…Although the Application indicates that the date of the last event was in 2009, in her submissions the applicant alleges the last incident took place on April 14, 2011 when she attempted to make inquiries with the Executive Director of the respondent organization about the mentorship workshops.

6…Although the applicant noted, in response to Question 7 of the Application, that the date of the last discriminatory incident was 2009, she now claims that the events have continued into 2011. The 2011 timeframe refers to the applicant’s attempts to communicate with the Executive Director of the respondent organization. Specifically, the 2011 discriminatory behaviour the applicant complains about is the Executive Director’s lack of knowledge of the mentorship program that the applicant was allegedly involved in 2009.

7I do not accept the applicant’s contention that the alleged discrimination she experienced in 2009 reoccurred in 2011 as the latest incident of discrimination simply because of her communications with the Executive Director. The acts which the applicant perceives to be discriminatory at the heart of her Application took place in 2009. This is acknowledged in her Application, where explains that the reason for the delay in filing her Application was because she was conducting her own research on the matter. As such, I find that the last incident of alleged discrimination cited in the Application took place in 2009.

10…I reject the applicant’s contention that the alleged discrimination she experienced in 2009 continued until, or reoccurred in, 2011 simply because she attempted to re-communicate her concerns at that time. To allow an applicant to revive an out of time claim by simply restating old concerns would undermine the purpose of section 34 of the Code. See Seetharam v. Iogen, 2010 HRTO 1811. Moreover, any alleged continuing effect flowing from the 2009 events do not extend the Code’s section 34(1) timeline. See Mafinezam v. University of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1495.

100There is significant overlap in the allegations made in each of the Applications against Inside Out. It would appear that the applicant is attempting in the present Application to relitigate what was dismissed for delay in the Application previously filed against Inside Out. In both this and the previously filed Application, the applicant essentially describes 1) her discontent with the way the respondent dealt with her as a mentor or a possible mentor; 2) her attempts to communicate with staff to complain about how she felt she was not properly treated as a mentor; and 3) her unsuccessful attempts to have the respondent’s staff erase an acknowledgement of her assistance as a mentor from the film of the student for whom she claims she was not a mentor. While this Application indicates that the last day of discrimination is May 20, 2011, it also states that the applicant has been waiting for an apology for two years. In the present Application, the applicant argues that the continued lack of communication or apology from the respondent’s staff constitutes ongoing discrimination. This is the analysis that was rejected by the Tribunal in the Decision dismissing the previously filed Application as per the reasons quoted above.

The Law and Declaring a Party Vexatious

101With reference to s. 23 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended (“SPPA”), (which allows the Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuses of its process), and with reference to Rules 1.1 and 1.7 (v.1) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (which enables the Tribunal to “make such orders or give such directions as are necessary to prevent abuse of its processes…”), the Tribunal stated in Drenic v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army, 2010 HRTO 1667:

18In my view, in controlling its process and preventing abuses of that process, the Tribunal can declare an individual a vexatious litigant, and prevent the filing of future applications without leave, on the basis of the filing of other applications that have led to the vexing of respondents and abuse of the Tribunal’s process. This also flows from the power of the Tribunal to ensure the fair, just and expeditious resolution of applications before it.

19In my view, as with the power of the courts to make similar orders, contained in s. 140 (1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended, this is a discretion that should be exercised in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal should not lightly subject a particular individual to an additional step in bringing a human rights application, and should recognize that in some cases, an individual’s improper conduct during Tribunal proceedings may be linked to a mental disability under the Code. At the same time, the Tribunal has a duty to ensure that public resources, and those of respondents, are not abused by a series of vexatious applications...

102In Drenic, supra, in Carlos v. Scher Law, 2010 HRTO 2019 and in Bingham v. Roach Schwartz Law Office, 2011 HRTO 15, certain factors were considered and relied upon by the Tribunal to prohibit vexatious applicants from filing applications without leave. These factors included the frequency or number of applications filed without apparent merit, and whether the applicants failed to substantiate the allegations. The purpose of finding the applicants to be vexatious was to protect the respondents from vexatious conduct and to ensure that the Tribunal’s resources are not wasted and its process not abused.

103In these eleven Applications, the applicant has been found to have no reasonable prospect of substantiating her allegations. Combined with the other Applications previously dismissed by the Tribunal, the total of Applications filed in 2010 and 2011 by the applicant that have been dismissed because of the same reason, or, in the case of a few, for jurisdictional reasons, is over twenty applications. That repeated filing of unsubstantiated applications is an abuse of the Tribunal’s resources. While the Tribunal strives to be acessible, (there is no fee to file applications and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award costs), it must ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all applicants who file applications and are protected from the abusive demands of processing repeatedly unsubstantiated applications from an applicant.

104As well, I find that the respondents are in need of protection from vexatious conduct by the applicant, particularly University of Toronto, York University and Inside Out against whom she has filed repeated applications. Many of the respondents were named in the present Applications for advertising events or projects which the applicant has no reasonable prospect of proving were discriminatory. To the contrary, the events and projects appear aimed to foster discussion to improve human rights, which should be encouraged, not discouraged by vexatious applications.

105The applicant’s conduct towards Inside Out, as outlined above, is particularly vexing. When the Tribunal indicated that the 2011 allegations appeared to be out of time with respect to alleged discrimination in 2009, the applicant provided submissions that the discrimination was ongoing into 2011 because that was when she attempted to make inquiries with the Executive Director about the 2009 events. As referenced above, the Tribunal disagreed and dismissed her Application. (Abdul v. Inside Out Toronto, supra). The applicant therefore knew that merely seeking to discuss again alleged discrimination does not extend the deadline to file an application within a year, and yet she filed the present Application seeking to find yet another way to express her discontent for being considered a mentor in 2009, an allegation that she has failed to demonstrate has any reasonable prospect of success.

106In the circumstances, the Tribunal declares the applicant to be a vexatious litigant.

SUMMARY

107All eleven of the Applications addressed in the summary hearing held before me are dismissed.

108The Tribunal declares the applicant to be a vexatious litigant. As such, the applicant is required to seek leave of the Tribunal if she wishes to file future applications with the Tribunal. If the applicant seeks leave to commence any future application, she must include submissions with her proposed Application that outline why she is legitimately asserting her Code rights, why she is not vexing the respondent, and why filing the application will not result in an abuse of process.

109The Applications against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and RBC Canada, which were filed after the summary hearing held before me shall be dealt with in separate decisions addressing the issues of jurisdiction. Until those decisions are made, the applicant is directed not to file any documents with respect to those Applications.