Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between: Clive Roy, Applicant -and- City of Toronto, Respondent

And Between: Clive Roy, Applicant -and- Social Benefits Tribunal, Respondent

And Between: Clive Roy, Applicant -and- Social Justice Tribunals Ontario, Respondent

And Between: Clive Roy, Applicant -and- Neighbourhood Legal Services, Respondent

And Between: Clive Roy, Applicant -and- Co-operators General Insurance Company, Respondent

And Between: Clive Roy, Applicant -and- Legal Aid Ontario, Respondent

And Between: Clive Roy, Applicant -and- Salvation Army – Ontario Central East, Respondent

And Between: Clive Roy, Applicant -and- Salvation Army – Territorial Headquarters, Respondent

And Between: Clive Roy, Applicant -and- Sound Times, Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: November 20, 2013 File Numbers: 2013-15386-I; 2013-15387-I; 2013-15388-I; 2013-15390-I; 2013-15391-I; 2013-15392-I; 2013-15393-I; 2013-15424-I; 2013-15425-I; 2013-15426-I; 2013-15427-I; 2013-15428-I; 2013-15485-I; 2013-15486-I; 2013-15499-I; 2013-15500-I; 2013-15501-I; 2013-15502-I; 2013-15816-I; 2013-15863-I; 2013-15902-I; 2013-15934-I; 2013-15935-I; 2013-15936-I; 2013-15937-I; 2013-15939-I; 2013-15940-I; 2013-15941-I; 2013-15942-I; 2013-15943-I; 2013-15944-I; 2013-15977-I; 2013-15978-I; 2013-15979-I; 2013-16009-I; 2013-16012-I; 2013-16013-I; 2013-16014-I; 2013-16015-I; 2013-16016-I; 2013-16017-I; 2013-16018-I; 2013-16019-I; 2013-16020-I; 2013-16038-I; 2013-16047-I; 2013-16048-I; 2013-16049-I; 2013-16050-I; 2013-16051-I; 2013-16052-I; 2013-16053-I; 2013-16054-I Citation: 2013 HRTO 1931 Indexed as: Roy v. Toronto (City)

Written Submissions

Clive Roy, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1These are 57 Applications filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") alleging a violation of the Code by at this stage 9 respondents.

2In Case Assessment Directions ("CAD") issued on September 26, 2013 the Tribunal directed on its own initiative that summary hearings be held pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules to determine whether or not 22 Applications filed previously by the applicant should be dismissed in whole or in part because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant then filed 56 or more further Applications many against the respondents above and a number alleging violations of the Code by the Tribunal.

3In a further CAD issued on November 15, 2013 the Tribunal directed that one summary hearing be held by conference call to determine whether all of these Applications should be dismissed in whole or in part because they have no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal also directed that the parties address the further issues of whether or not these Applications are an abuse of the Tribunal's process and/or whether or not the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant. Further Directions are to be issued in respect of this latter Direction in due course.

Requests for Reconsideration

4The applicant has filed multiple Requests for Reconsideration of the September 26, 2013 Case Assessment Directions.

5Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provides that a party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. A decision will only be considered a final decision where the decision has the effect of finally determining the substance of the dispute or a central element of the dispute between the parties. See for example Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Ontario Teachers' Federation, 1994 CanLII 10578 (ON CTGD), 19 O.R. (3d) 371.

6In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al., 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal considered at length the question of when a decision should be considered final for the purposes of the reconsideration power. After carefully considering the policy issues and the relevant authorities the Tribunal concluded:

As a general principle, having regard to the approach taken in other forums as well as the above discussion, it is reasonable to view a "final decision" as one that disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint as between the parties. This general principle will take on a more precise shape as the Tribunal applies it to cases before it.

7Having considered these cases I find that Case Assessment Directions are not in any sense of the word a final decision. I find that they do not deprive the applicant of "any prospect of a remedy" as against the respondents and do not dispose of any part of these Applications. Not being final decisions, they cannot, at this time, be the subject of a reconsideration request. See Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 429. The Requests are dismissed

Requests for Order

8In addition to more than 70 Applications at this stage the applicant has also filed multiple Form 11s in response to the original Notices of Summary Hearing. The respondents need not respond to these issues.

9The applicant has also filed multiple Requests for Order During Proceeding (Form 10) ("Requests") in relation to all of these Applications. The respondents need not respond to any of these Requests. For the reasons that follow the Requests are denied.

10The applicant has filed Requests in many of these Applications seeking an Order that the Tribunal acknowledge and respond to his requests for mediation.

11The Requests are denied. The applicant argues that he had requested mediation in his Applications and mediation has not been scheduled. The Tribunal is empowered by its Rules in particular Rules 1.1, 1.5 and 1.7 v.1 to determine how a case will proceed through its process in order to ensure a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the dispute. Accordingly the Tribunal has directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether or not these Applications should proceed further in the process including mediation if any of the respondents are agreeable, or if they should be dismissed in whole or in part for the reasons set out in the CAD of November 15, 2013. In my view it would not be appropriate to explore the possibility for mediation in these cases before determining whether they will be processed further.

12The Applicant has filed a further Request which purports to be in relation to Tribunal file 2013-15386-I against Neighbourhood Legal Services although in the Form 10 the applicant identifies another individual as the respondent. In this Request the applicant seeks an Order that the Tribunal uphold its responsibility to keep ISAC properly apprised of this proceeding. ISAC is not a party to this Application and accordingly no such Order would be appropriate. This Request is denied

13The applicant has also filed Requests in respect of many of these Applications seeking an Order that the Tribunal provide the applicant with reasons and a "full argument" in support of dismissal. The applicant argues that Rules 13.2 and 19A.3 are mandatory and require that the Tribunal provide this information to him.

14These Requests are dismissed. Rule 13.2 applies where the Tribunal has issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Rule does not apply where the Tribunal has reviewed the file and determined that a summary hearing would be appropriate. In any event the Tribunal has indicated in its various CADs the issues to be addressed at the summary hearing and intends to provide further direction in due course. As regards Rule 19A.3 this Rule applies where a respondent requests a summary hearing and has no application to these circumstances. In any case as indicated previously the Tribunal has provided the basis for its concern with these Applications and will provide further directions.

15The applicant has filed Requests in many of these Applications seeking an Order that the Tribunal require that the respondents file Responses (Form 2) to these Applications. For the same reasons as set out above in response to the applicants Requests that the Tribunal grant his request for mediation, these Requests are dismissed.

16For all of these reasons the applicant's Requests for Reconsideration and Requests for Order are denied.

17As can be seen from the above the applicant has filed multiple Requests many in respect of the same Applications. None of the Requests have any merit and appear to be intended to overwhelm the Tribunal and the other parties. This practice must stop. In order to ensure the orderly adjudication of these Applications and to prevent an abuse of the Tribunal's process the Tribunal will not entertain any further Requests by the applicant with respect to these Applications. The applicant is directed to cease filing multiple Requests in respect of these matters.

18The applicant has filed two identical Requests in the Applications as against the Salvation Army. The applicant seeks the production of the respondents' policy with respect to requests for criminal records checks because the applicant claims that the failure of the respondent to follow its own policy is integral to his case. These Requests are denied. I observe at the outset that there is no allegation in the Application that the respondent failed to follow its own policy. In any case at the summary hearing stage the Tribunal does not hear the parties' evidence as such. Rather the Tribunal requires the applicant to point to the evidence that he or she claims is available and explain how such evidence would tend to establish a violation of the Code. In this context the applicant would be required to explain how the fact that the respondent may not have followed their own policy would tend to establish discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

Directions

19The Tribunal makes the following Directions:

a. The Requests for Reconsideration and Requests for Orders are denied.

b. The applicant is directed to cease filing Requests with respect to these cases pending the conclusion of the summary hearing.

c. The Tribunal may make further Direction in these cases.

20I am not seized.