HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hans Harry Felix
Applicant
-and-
Shoppers Drug Mart, Mamak Shaifi, Jamie Jones,
National Computer Professionals, Robert Lombardi and Adrian Lombardi
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Felix v. Shoppers Drug Mart
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Shoppers Drug Mart, Mamak Shafai and ) Allyson Fischer, Counsel
Jamie Jones, Respondents )
1Parties before the HRTO have the obligation to be courteous and respectful of the Tribunal and other participants. They must respect Tribunal orders and directions, even if they disagree with them. A failure of an applicant to do so may result in dismissal of an Application for abuse of process.
2In a previous Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2179, the Tribunal held that materials filed by the applicant had gone beyond the acceptable bounds of Tribunal submissions. It gave various directions to the applicant. The applicant refused to follow these directions and continued making statements that were discourteous and insulting. Accordingly, this Application is dismissed for abuse of process.
THE INTERIM DECISION
3This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. In the Interim Decision, at paras. 2-8, the Tribunal summarized the events that had occurred to that point:
Prior to filing the Application, the applicant communicated with the President and CEO of SDM by e-mail. By letter dated September 22, 2010, counsel for SDM, Allyson Fischer of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP, wrote to the applicant directing that a response to the emails would be forthcoming, and asking that he refrain from contacting anyone at SDM directly, as Hicks Morley had been retained to represent it. The applicant responded to that message, copying various SDM employees. On September 23, 2010, Ms. Fischer wrote to the applicant again requesting that correspondence be directed to Ms. Fischer, and indicating that various legal actions could be taken to stop that communication. The applicant responded to that letter, again copying various SDM employees.
On September 24, 2010, the applicant filed his Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground as well as reprisal. The Application relates to a four-month period during which the applicant provided information technology services to SDM through an agreement with the co-respondent, National Computer Professionals. The applicant sent the Application not only to the Tribunal Registrar, but to various employees at SDM, Ms. Fischer, and individuals in other organizations, including the media. The email was also copied to me and to a Vice-chair of the Tribunal at our government email addresses. The cover email referred to “vile” events ongoing at SDM and suggested that the respondents and suggested that the respondents were “so called Canadians” who could “influence the justice system”.
In his Application, when identifying the individual respondents, the applicant invented fictitious middle names for two of them, identifying one as “deception/disrespectful” and the other as “the new David Smith”.
On the evening of September 24, the applicant sent an email to counsel for SDM, various employees of SDM and individuals in other organizations, including the media. The email accused counsel of providing “false, misleading fabricated evidences”, and suggested the law firm would “embarrass itself in the public eye”.
Since September 24, 2010, the applicant has continued to send correspondence about his Tribunal matter and demands for a settlement of that matter to SDM employees and others outside the organization, and Ms. Fischer has continued to request that he refrain from doing so. He has continued to copy me and a Vice-chair of the Tribunal on correspondence despite directions from the Registrar of the Tribunal that correspondence must be directed through the Registrar.
While I will not refer to all of this correspondence, in emails of October 1 and October 5, 2010, the applicant stated that he would attend at SDM site with police officers to demand money because he believed it was theft. In an email of October 5, 2010, copied to the Registrar, SDM employees, the Interim Chair of the Tribunal and a Vice-chair, he compared the individual respondents to Nazi SS soldiers and again stated that he would attend with a police officer to collect money he said he was owed.
4At paragraph 13, the Tribunal found as follows:
In various materials filed with the Tribunal, including the Application itself, the applicant has gone beyond the acceptable bounds of Tribunal submissions, in particular in his use of fictitious middle names for the individual respondents, in accusing the respondent’s counsel of fabricating evidence, and in comparing the individual respondents to Nazis. He has also copied these materials, which relate to the Tribunal’s process, to other individuals, despite the direction by SDM counsel that she was the contact person. He has failed to communicate with the Tribunal only through the Registrar despite Rule 1.12 and the direction not to communicate with Tribunal members directly.
5Accordingly, the Tribunal made the following directions:
(1) The applicant shall deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal a new copy of the Application without the insulting middle names for the individual respondents within seven (7) days of the date of this Interim Decision. The date for Response to the Application, currently November 18, 2010, is extended until 35 days after the date the respondents receive a new Application that is free of comments that are disrespectful of other participants.
(2) All communications from the applicant regarding the Tribunal Application, including any offers of or requests for settlement shall be directed only to the Registrar, Ms. Fischer, Robert Lombardi, Adrian Lombardi, and National Computer Professionals. If Robert Lombardi, Adrian Lombardi and National Computer Professionals advise the Tribunal and the other parties that they have a representative, communication with those parties shall only be through the representative.
(3) The applicant shall not copy any materials relating to this Application to employees of Shoppers Drug Mart or to anyone at the Tribunal other than the Registrar.
(4) All communications regarding this Application shall be courteous and respectful of other participants.
(5) Failure to comply with these orders may result in a dismissal of the application for abuse of process.
EVENTS AFTER THE INTERIM DECISION
6On October 29, 2010, the day the Interim Decision was released, the applicant sent the following email, which was copied to me at my email address:
Good afternoon,
I will abide by the Tribunal's order but be aware that because of this issue being extremely serious; other government agencies (apart of the Toronto Police, RCPM, CSIS, and York Regional Police, and etc..) involving in this. They will