Papouchine v. Named Respondents, 2014 HRTO 1148

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexandre Papouchine

Applicant

-and-

Named Respondents

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: July 31, 2014

2014-17260-I, 2014-17261-I, 2014-17262-I, 2014-17263-I, 2014-17134-I

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1148

Indexed as: Papouchine v. Named Respondents

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alexandre Papouchine, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Decision addresses the applicant’s Requests for leave to proceed with Applications 2014-17014-I, 2014-17133-I, 2014-17194-I, 2014-17196-I, 2014-17260-I, 2014-17261-I, 2014-17262-I, 2014-17263-I. I have also dealt with Application 2014-17134-I for reasons I explain below. This brings the total number of applications resolved by this Decision to 9.

2These Requests follow from Tribunal decision 2014 HRTO 588 (the “Decision”) dismissing 8 other Applications filed by the applicant. See the Decision for a more detailed procedural history of those cases.

3In the Decision, among other conclusions, I found that the applicant was a vexatious litigant before the Tribunal and made the following Orders:

1. These Applications are dismissed because they have no reasonable prospect of success.

2. The applicant is declared to be a vexatious litigant, and is required to obtain leave (permission) from an adjudicator of the Tribunal to file further applications against any respondent.

3. The applicant will communicate with the Tribunal by regular mail and not electronic mail.

4. With respect to Applications 2014-17014-I, 2014-17133-I, 2014-17194-I, 2014-17196-I, 2014-17260-I, 2014-17261-I, 2014-17262-I, 2014-17263-I, the applicant will make submissions in writing by regular mail within 15 days of the date of this Decision, failing which, they will be dismissed as abandoned. In his submission the applicant will explain why he believes these applications are not intended to vex or harass the named respondents and how they represent a legitimate assertion of his Code rights.

5. If the applicant seeks leave to file a future Application against any respondent, he must file a complete Application by regular mail, and include written submissions, explaining why the Application is a legitimate assertion of his Code rights, is not vexatious, and is not an abuse of process.

4The applicant filed written submissions in response to paragraph 4 of my Order. The applicant alleges that the named respondents in these 9 Applications have engaged in reprisals against him for seeking to advance his rights under the Code. He points to the content of the Applications themselves as an explanation for why he believes that the allegations represent a legitimate exercise of his rights under the Code. The applicant makes the following allegations in the Applications under review:

• 2014-17263-I: the applicant raises questions about the Tribunal’s summary hearing process and alleges discrimination against the Ontario Human Rights Commission (Commission) for failing to intervene in the Tribunal’s decision to declare him a vexatious litigant;
• 2014-17014-I: the applicant alleges that the Ministry of Consumer Services (Ministry) owed him a duty to of care to protect him against violations of the Consumer Protection Act;
• 2014-17133-I, 2014-17194-I, 2014-17196, 2014-17260-I, 2014-17261-I, 2014-17262: Using the same language in each Application, the applicant alleges that the named respondents engaged in discrimination and reprisal under the Code when they and/or their representatives, participated in the summary hearing which lead to the applicant being declared a vexatious litigant.

5When the Decision was issued declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant the Application 2014-17134-I was inadvertently left out of the list of pending Applications in relation to which the applicant was required to make submissions. I note however that this Application names the same respondent and repeats the same allegations as Application 2014-17196-I and therefore I have included it in this Decision.

Decision

6The Applications which are the subject of this Decision were filed prior to the release of my Decision declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant. They were held in abeyance until the vexatious litigant issue was determined. In my Decision the applicant was asked to explain why he believes these Applications are not intended to vex or harass the named respondents and how they represent a legitimate assertion of his Code rights.

7I agree with the Tribunal in Roy v. Named Respondents, 2014 HRTO 917, that the onus rests with the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that these Applications should proceed.

8All of the Applications but one relate to the summary hearing which resulted in my Decision. The applicant alleges that the respondents engaged in discrimination and reprisal against him for participating in the summary hearing, as they were required to do by the Tribunal, and for taking a position in support of the declaration. The applicant alleges that the Commission engaged in discrimination and reprisal for failing to intervene and respond to his allegations about the Tribunal’s summary hearing process.

9The Application against the Ministry is of the same nature as the Applications which lead to my Decision declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant: the respondent refused to do what the applicant requested and the applicant responded with an allegation of discrimination. There is nothing in the Application against the Ministry which would suggest that there is a basis for an Application under the Code.

10I find that the applicant’s submissions do not address the substance of my Order in any meaningful way. As was the case in Roy, instead of explaining why the proposed Applications are a legitimate effort to vindicate his Code rights he attempts to make legal points which attack the summary hearing process and Decision but provides no reasons why the Tribunal might conclude that these particular Applications should proceed. Having reviewed the applicant’s submissions and the Applications I am not satisfied that the applicant has met the burden imposed on him by my Order.

11Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, leave to proceed with these 9 Applications is denied and they are dismissed.