HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Zhuqi Zhou
Applicant
-and-
Canadian Council of Churches
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume
Indexed as: Zhou v. Canadian Council of Churches
APPEARANCES
Zhuqi Zhou, Applicant ) Mr. Dai, Representative
Canadian Council of Churches, ) Dr. Hamilton, Representative
Respondent )
1This Decision arises from directions issued by the Tribunal in two previous Case Assessment Directions (“CAD”) dated May 14, 2013 and July 12, 2013. The May 14, 2013 CAD noted:
The applicant has filed an Application with the Tribunal. The Canadian Council of Churches is named as the respondent. The Application initially indicated that the contact information for the applicant was c/o Peikang Dai. Peikang Dai was the applicant in a series of Applications at the Tribunal which have all been dismissed. The last in the series was Dai v. Presbyterian Church in Canada, 2012 HRTO 1975. That Decision dismissed the Application as an abuse of process because it was in essence an attempt to re-litigate matters that the Tribunal has already determined in earlier decisions.
The Decision also declared the applicant to be a vexatious litigant.
2The Decision in Dai v. Presbyterian Church in Canada, 2012 HRTO 1975 (“Dai”) was subsequently upheld by the Divisional Court in Dai v. Presbyterian Church of Canada, 2013 ONSC 6650.
3The CAD of July 12, 2013 noted that if a person is declared to be a vexatious litigant, the person must obtain leave of the Tribunal if the person wishes to file any future Applications with the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the applicant to participate in a teleconference and address the following issues:
Is this Application in fact brought by Peikang Dai?
Is Mr. Dai the applicant’s representative?
Is the substance of this Application any different than the Applications previously filed by Mr. Dai?
Would it be an abuse of the Tribunal’s process to permit the Application to proceed?
4The Tribunal also noted in the CAD of July 12, 2013:
If the applicant is permitted to bring the Application, it is not clear from the Application how the respondent is alleged to have infringed the applicant’s Code-protected rights. Under Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may direct that a summary hearing be held to determine if an Application should be dismissed because there is no reasonable prospect that that the Application can succeed. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearings, which is available on the Tribunal’s website, explains the purpose of the summary hearing:
A summary hearing usually considers:
whether, assuming all of the allegations are true, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation; and/or
whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated by the respondent(s). The applicant has to show that he or she can make a link between the event that led to the Application and the alleged ground(s) of discrimination.
In addition to the matters set out above, the telephone conference call hearing will also consider whether the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
5The parties participated in a conference call on October 17, 2013 during which they were provided with an opportunity to make oral submissions on the issues identified in the CAD of July 12, 2013. The applicant’s request to file further material following the conference call was granted.
Analysis
6The named applicant is Zhuqi Zhou, who is described as the Clerk of the Session, Shenzou Presbyterian Church. Mr. Dai is listed as both the alternative contact and representative in the Application. It appears that Mr. Zhou considers himself an organizational representative. In the narrative Mr. Zhou uses the plural “we” in describing a group of applicants who self-identify as immigrants and refugees fleeing persecution in China. The group alleges that they are victims of systemic discrimination by the Presbyterian Church of Canada (the “Church”).
7Mr. Dai alleges that he is not an applicant in this matter. Mr. Dai describes himself as an unpaid friend who is assisting Mr. Zhou who is unable to read, speak or write in English. Mr. Dai denied that this Application is related to the previous applications he has filed with the Tribunal which culminated in the decision to declare him a vexatious litigant in Dai. Mr. Dai did not make submissions on whether it would constitute an abuse of the Tribunal’s process to permit this Application to proceed. Only Mr. Dai was in attendance at the hearing.
8In Dai the Tribunal begins its decision declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant with the following statements:
This Application is the fifth Application the applicant has filed with the Tribunal, arising out of the applicant’s attempts to have the Presbyterian Church in Canada (“the Church”) recognize the mainland Chinese Presbyterian Fellowship and constitute it as a congregation of the Church. The Church has not recognized the Fellowship. In the present Application, the applicant alleges that the decision-making process followed by the Church was discriminatory and that he has personally been subject to discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed, family status, marital status and reprisal.
9The Tribunal found that although the fifth application contained allegations of discrimination in relation to Mr. Dai’s personal circumstances, it raised the same or substantially the same allegations as the previous applications.
10The Application before me involves an attack on a third party organization for its failure to challenge the Church for engaging in the same acts of discrimination as are alleged by Mr. Dai in his previous applications. Although this Application names a different applicant and respondent, in substance, it raises the same allegations as the previous applications filed by Mr. Dai. While I will not go so far as to find that Mr. Dai is engaged in a conscious effort to subvert the Tribunal’s declaration that he is a vexatious litigation, I consider that to be a real possibility should he continue his attempts to have these issues litigated