HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Godfred Kwaku Hiamey
Applicant
-and-
Conseil scolaire de district Catholique Centre-Sud and Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Godfred Kwaku Hiamey
Applicant
-and-
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP and Julie Skinner
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Godfred Kwaku Hiamey
Applicant
-and-
Ontario College of Teachers and Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Godfred Kwaku Hiamey
Applicant
-and-
Conseil scolaire de district Catholique Centre-Sud and Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Godfred Kwaku Himey
Applicant
-and-
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP and Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Godfred Kwaku Hiamey
Applicant
-and-
Law Society of Upper Canada and Zeynep Onen
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Godfred Kwaku Hiamey
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Labour Relations Board and Mary Anne McKellar
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Godfred Kwaku Hiamey
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Judicial Council and Anna Brigido
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Date: February 28, 2012
2011-08383-I; 2011-10488-I; 2011-10579-I; 2012-10754-I
Citation: 2012 HRTO 414
Indexed as: Hiamey v. Conseil scolaire de district Catholique Centre-Sud
1This Interim Decision relates to a Request for Interim Remedy filed by the applicant dated January 26, 2012, seeking interim payments from the respondents. Further, the Tribunal seeks submissions on whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant and prevented from filing further applications without leave of the Tribunal.
2The applicant has filed a multitude of applications that stem from his dismissal as a teacher from the Conseil scolaire de district Catholique Centre-sud (the “Board”). He has filed applications against the Board, his union, which decided not to take his grievance to arbitration, and the law firm that represented his union. He has filed Applications against the Ontario College of Teachers, which was investigating a complaint against him, and the law firm that represented him before the College of Teachers. He complained about the union’s lawyer to the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”), and when the LSUC did not proceed with his complaint, he filed a human rights Application against it and its Director, Dispute Resolution. He filed a duty of fair representation application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”), and when that application was dismissed, he filed a human rights Application against the OLRB and the adjudicator who made the decision. The applicant complained about the OLRB adjudicator to the Ontario Judicial Council (“OJC”). When the OJC advised the applicant the complaint did not fall within its mandate, the applicant filed a human rights Application against it and its Deputy Registrar.
3In a Decision dated February 22, 2012, the Application against the Board was dismissed as untimely, and the Applications against the Board, the union, the law firms, and the Ontario College of Teachers were dismissed on the basis that they have no reasonable prospect of success. See Hiamey v. Conseil scolaire de district Catholique Centre-Sud, 2012 HRTO 301. The Tribunal has ordered summary hearings in the Applications against the OJC and the LSUC, on its own initiative and without requiring a response, under Rule 19A. The hearing in the Application against the LSUC will be held on March 12, 2012, and the hearing in the Application against the Ontario Judicial Council is currently being scheduled. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss in the Application against the OLRB on the basis that it appears the Application falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because of judicial immunity.
4The Request for Interim Remedy in the Applications that have been dismissed is now moot. These are no longer Applications before the Tribunal. As for the three remaining Applications, I find that they do not meet the first stage of the test for interim remedy, which is that the Application “appears to have merit” (Rules 23.2(a)). In my view, the three remaining applications do not appear to have merit, given in particular the fact that one appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the other two appear to make no link between any grounds of discrimination and the treatment of the applicant’s complaints by the two public bodies.
5Finally, the applicant has now filed eight applications, all of which flow from his initial dismissal from employment by the Board. The applicant has filed against his employer, his union, lawyers representing the union and him, and various public bodies that have dealt with complaints against him. In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to seek submissions on 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 set out in Drenic v. Salvation Army, 2010 HRTO 1667 and Abdul v. University of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 2299. The applicant and respondents may make written submissions on this issue within two weeks from the date of this Interim Decision. If the applicant seeks to also make oral submissions on this issue, he may do so during the summary hearing in his Application against the Ontario Judicial Council.
6I am not seized of these Applications.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of February, 2012.
”signed by”______________
David A. Wright
Associate Chair