Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Alexandre Papouchine
Applicant
-and-
Named Respondent
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Papouchine v. Named Respondent
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Alexandre Papouchine, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Decision addresses the applicant’s Requests for leave to proceed with this Application.
2This Request follows from Tribunal Decision 2014 HRTO 588 (the “Decision”) dismissing 8 other Applications filed by the applicant and declaring the applicant to be a vexatious litigant. Specifically, the Tribunal made the following orders:
…
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.
...
…
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.
3The applicant asserts in this Application that the respondent cancelled a contract of insurance after he had signed it. He fails to make any link in his Application to this decision being based on the prohibited ground of ancestry and place of origin, other than to say he is unable to find a non-discriminatory explanation for the cancellation. As with previous Applications to this Tribunal, the applicant suggests that the conduct was based on the fact that he is “Russion, not noble.”
4As noted in paras. 15 and 16 of the Decision declaring the applicant to be a vexatious litigant, the applicant has a history of filing Applications in which he cannot make a link to the Code:
It is hard to quarrel with the applicant’s belief that customer service befitting a Prince is elusive to all but an actual Prince. However, what lies at the root of the many applications filed by this applicant is a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes discrimination under the Code. The applicant’s allegations are bereft of any connection between the prohibited grounds he relies on and the conduct allegedly engaged in by the respondents – a critical element in proving discrimination. The applicant assumes this connection exists because he cannot think of any other reason for the alleged conduct on the part of the respondents. However, in order to proceed to a hearing, the applicant must point to evidence which is reasonably available to support these assumptions. See for example Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994.
The applicant has filed multiple applications and myriad documents describing his grievances and his belief that he is the victim of discrimination. Three previous applications were dismissed as were his requests for reconsideration. With respect to the applications before me, the applicant was provided with an opportunity for oral submissions in order to elaborate on the facts and arguments raised in the applications. Despite that, it remains clear that the applicant is unable to point to evidence or allege sufficient facts which could support a finding of discrimination. These applications therefore have no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant is unable to point to evidence which could establish a connection between the conduct of the respondents and the grounds of ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin.
5The applicant bears the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that this Application should proceed. He has failed in his submissions to specify any reason why this Application should be permitted to proceed given the lack of connection between the respondent’s conduct and the grounds cited.
ORDER
6For the reasons set out above, leave to proceed with this Application is denied and it is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of September, 2014.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair