Roy v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2014 HRTO 449

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Social Benefits Tribunal and Social Justice Tribunals Ontario

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, Employment & Social Services Division

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC)

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Salvation Army – Territorial Headquarters

Respondent

Interim DecisION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 28, 2014

2014-17035-I; 2014-17037-I; 2014-17038-I; 2014-17039-I;

2014-17041-I

Citation: 2014 HRTO 449

Indexed as: Roy v. Social Benefits Tribunal

1These are nine Applications filed between November 25 and 28, 2013 by the applicant alleging violations of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), by the respondents above.

BACKGROUND

2These Applications are amongst a great number of Applications that the applicant began filing beginning on September 3, 2013. As of this writing the Applicant has filed 171 Applications against various respondents. See 2014 HRTO 214 for a more detailed procedural history of these cases.

3As of November 20, 2013 the applicant had filed 58 Applications against nine respondents, the bulk of them alleging discrimination by the City of Toronto (19 Applications) and the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”) (26 Applications). There were a number of other Applications as against this Tribunal which have been processed separately.

4In a Case Assessment Direction issued on November 20, 2013 the Tribunal made a number of Directions including that the Tribunal would hold in abeyance any further Applications filed by the applicant pending the conclusion of a summary hearing scheduled to consider amongst other issues, whether or not 58 Applications should be dismissed because they had no reasonable prospect of success; or, because they were an abuse of the Tribunal’s process; and, whether or not the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant. These nine Applications are ones filed subsequent to my November 20 Direction and accordingly were not processed by the Tribunal.

5A Summary Hearing was held on January 16, 2014. In a Decision issued on February 14, 2014, 2014 HRTO 214, I dismissed the 58 Applications because they had no reasonable prospect of success and they were an abuse of process. I also concluded that the applicant was a vexatious litigant and made the following Orders:

1. The Applications listed above are dismissed.

2. The applicant is declared a vexatious litigant. I order that the applicant Clive Roy may not file further applications at this Tribunal without leave of the Tribunal.

3. If the applicant seeks leave of the Tribunal to file any such future application he must include with his compete application submissions that outline why the application is intended as a legitimate assertion of his Code rights, is not intended to vex the respondents and will not result in an abuse of process. The Tribunal will consider any future applications which fail to include these submissions as incomplete and will treat them as such.

DECISION AND DIRECTIONS

6These nine Applications were filed on November 25, 27 and 28, 2013. These Applications follow the established pattern observed in the many other Applications filed by the applicant to date. As with his previous Applications these Applications allege discrimination in a single transaction with the identified respondent. So for example the applicant alleges in 2014-10730-I and 2014-10731-I that the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”) failed to respond to two emails he alleges were sent on November 12, 2014 seeking an extension of time to file two requests for reconsideration of SBT decisions. On the face of these Applications there are no facts plead that might establish the applicant’s membership in a protected group and no other facts plead that connect these alleged incidents to any of the multiple Code grounds cited repeating the established pattern in the prior 58 Applications.

7In six of the nine Applications the applicant claims discrimination on every ground available except for age, receipt of social assistance, record of offences and association with a member of a protected group. In the Applications as against the Salvation Army the applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of record of offences and reprisal but provided no facts which connect the incidents complained of with the Code. As with his prior Applications the applicant provides no facts which remotely connect the circumstances complained of to any of the grounds claimed and provides no facts which would tend to establish discrimination in the alleged incident.

8In addition, in the same pattern established with the many other Applications he has filed, the applicant continues to file serial Applications raising similar issues often involving single discrete transactions with some, as in the two cases above, an identical incident said to have occurred on the same day. I also observe that as he did in the 26 earlier Applications as against the SBT the applicant neglects to acknowledge the SBT’s Direction that he communicate with it by regular mail and not email which may explain the non-response to his requests.

9In my view these Applications raise all of the concerns that gave rise to my determinations that the 58 previous Applications were an abuse of process and the applicant a vexatious litigant. Accordingly I find that they are subject to the Orders made in 2014 HRTO 214, reproduced above. Accordingly these Applications are incomplete and will not be processed further until the applicant has complied with the Tribunal’s Order that he make submissions which satisfy the Tribunal that the Applications are intended as a legitimate assertion of his Code rights, are not intended to vex the respondents and will not result in an abuse of process.

OTHER MATTERS

Communications with the Tribunal

10The Applicant has filed 171 Applications since September 3, 2013. In 2014 HRTO 214 I discussed the problem posed by the 58 Applications that process was concerned with at paras 95 and 96:

95As is set out above, the applicant has filed an extraordinary number of Applications. He also gave every indication that he would continue to do so. I therefore issued directions that the Tribunal would not process any further applications pending the conclusion of the summary hearing. As also indicated, the applicant has chosen to file serial applications in respect of single discrete interactions which he alleges are discriminatory. Often he has filed more than one application arising out of the same inter-action. See, for example, the several Applications arising out of meeting with employees of the City on November 12, 2013.

96The volume of Applications filed by the applicant posed problems for the applicant himself who on more than one occasion requested the Tribunal’s assistance to ensure that he was not filing duplicates of Applications already filed. Despite these efforts it is clear from the narrative above that several of the Applications are essentially reiterations of allegations already made in prior Applications and in some instances appear to be the same Application simply re-filed. In this regard I note again that in 2013-15387-I while the applicant identified only Neighbourhood Legal Services as the respondent the allegations appear to relate to another legal aid clinic.

11And further at paras 104 and 105:

104In addition to the extraordinary number of Applications, the applicant filed a correspondingly large volume of Requests for Order; Requests for Reconsideration and Responses to Requests for Order which were in fact challenges to Tribunal decisions. Every determination of the Tribunal was resisted and challenged on spurious grounds. As set out in my Case Assessment Direction of December 19, 2013 the applicant filed 125 Requests of various kinds. Even after my Direction that he cease filing such Requests until the summary hearing was held a great number more were filed. The volume of material generated by the applicant imposed a significant burden on the resources of the parties as well as the Tribunal.

105In addition to generating a veritable mountain of Applications and Requests the applicant has routinely failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions and orders. So, for example, the applicant has continued to ignore the Tribunal’s direction that these Applications be consolidated by respondent. This direction was made for a number of reasons including reducing the administrative burden on the parties and the Tribunal in simply managing the paper generated in this case. Despite this Direction the applicant continued to file Requests, etc. in respect of each separate Application. So, for example, on January 15, 2014, beginning about mid-day, the applicant began filing multiple Requests to adjourn the consolidated summary hearing scheduled for the next day. It appears that he filed 35 such Requests in respect of these 58 Applications before he stopped. I note again that despite my Direction that no further Requests be filed pending the conclusion of the summary hearing several counsel advised that he continued to do so through the month of December.

12Notwithstanding prior Directions consolidating the 58 prior Applications by respondent the applicant continues his approach of serial multiple filings where one Application or other communication would be appropriate and sufficient. So for example although there was one Decision coming out of the Summary Hearing the applicant appears to have filed 58 separate Form 20 Requests for Reconsideration. Similarly as discussed above the applicant has continued to file serial Applications related to essentially the same issues with respect to single transactions occurring over very short periods of time despite a Direction that he cease doing so in a Case Assessment Direction issued on November 20, 2013.

13The extraordinary volume of Applications and other filings of the applicant impose a significant burden on the responding parties as well as the Tribunal. Most importantly he has been directed to cease the practice and yet the pattern of abusive conduct continues. There is also no reasonable justification for this continuing practice by the applicant at this stage. The inescapable conclusion is that his continuing practice is intended to vex and harass the other participants in the process.

14The Tribunal has the authority, indeed the responsibility, to make such Orders as are necessary to prevent an abuse of its process. Section 23(1) of the SPPA provides as follows:

A tribunal may make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuse of its processes.

15Similarly Rule A8 of the Social Justice Tribunals of Ontario Common Rules found in Part 1 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure applies to these proceedings and provides as follows:

A8.1 The tribunal may make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuse of its processes.

16As noted earlier pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules the Tribunal made a Direction in a Case Assessment Direction issued on November 20, 2013 that communication with the Tribunal be by regular mail to the Registrar. Similar Directions have been made by the SBT and by the Divisional Court. The applicant has not complied with this Direction and on occasion the Tribunal has dealt with communications from the applicant that appear to have been made in violation of the Direction. It is also not clear that this earlier Direction applied to all communications with the Tribunal in respect of all cases commenced by the applicant.

17In order to prevent the ongoing abuse of the Tribunal’s process which I have found has occurred by the applicant’s conduct in his multiple proceedings before the Tribunal, the Tribunal confirms and clarifies its earlier Direction that all communication by the applicant with the Tribunal shall be by regular mail to the Registrar. The Tribunal will not accept or respond to any communication by the applicant which is delivered electronically including any Requests for Leave to file an Application, any Applications, and any Requests for Order, any Requests for Reconsideration or any other communication of any kind. Communications from the applicant delivered by any other means (including electronic means) will not be acknowledged or processed by the Tribunal.

Consolidation

18These nine Applications are filed against five respondents. The Applications as they relate to each respondent are essentially the same and relate to alleged incidents within a short period of time, some on the same day. In order to ensure the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of these Applications, the Tribunal intends to consolidate these Applications by organizational respondent pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of its Rules should leave be granted.

ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS

19The Tribunal makes the following Orders and Directions:

a. These nine Applications are incomplete and will not be processed by the Tribunal pending the applicant’s compliance with the Order made in 2014 HRTO 214 which required that the applicant satisfy the Tribunal that the Applications are intended as a legitimate assertion of his Code rights, are not intended to vex the respondents and will not result in an abuse of process;

b. The Tribunal confirms and clarifies its earlier Direction with respect to electronic communication with the Tribunal and Orders that the applicant may communicate with the Tribunal only by regular mail to the Registrar including without limiting the generality of this Order: any Requests for Leave to File an Application; any Application, any Request for Order During Proceeding; and any communication whatsoever with respect to any existing or future case before the Tribunal. Communications from the applicant delivered by any other means (including electronic means) will not be acknowledged or processed by the Tribunal;

c. Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 1.7(d) in the event that leave is granted these nine Applications will be consolidated by respondent.

20I am not seized of this case.