Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Social Benefits Tribunal

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Social Justice Tribunals Ontario

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Neighbourhood Legal Services

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Co-operators General Insurance Company

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Legal Aid Ontario

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Salvation Army – Ontario Central East

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Salvation Army – Territorial Headquarters

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Sound Times

Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 15, 2014

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 and 2013-16101-I

Citation: 2014 HRTO 65

Indexed as: Roy v. Toronto (City)

Reasons for Decision

1These are 58 Applications filed by the applicant alleging violations of the Code by the various respondents above. A summary hearing is scheduled to take place on January 16, 2014.

2On January 15, 2014 the Tribunal began receiving Requests for Order During Proceeding (“Requests”) seeking the adjournment of the summary hearing. As of this writing 35 Requests have been received. They appear to be identical. I note that the applicant continues to ignore the Tribunal’s Directions that all communications with respect to these cases be filed by regular mail. There is nothing urgent in these Requests as the issues raised by the applicant would have been known to him for some period of time prior to today.

3The request to adjourn is denied. The applicant asserts that he is experiencing health issues that prevent him from engaging in what he describes as a marathon hearing. The nature of the health issues is not identified nor is it clear why the applicant is unable to deal with the issues to be dealt with tomorrow.

4The applicant argues that the hearing should be adjourned pending a complaint made by the applicant to the Information & Privacy Commissioner alleging a breach of s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act by the Tribunal. He does not articulate any reason why this would be so. This is not a reason to adjourn.

5The applicant also makes a number of procedural objections to the summary hearing process. I have reviewed his prior objections as well as additional arguments set out in this Request. So for example the applicant argues that the summary hearing was established contrary to the Tribunal’s Rules. This is not so. The summary hearing was set up in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 19A.

6The applicant argues that the summary hearing is not in compliance with section 40 of the Code which provides that the Tribunal may make rules for the adjudication of applications before it. The applicant does not say why this is so. The applicant argues that the summary hearing is in contravention of Rule 7.4 which provides that an application will not be deferred without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions. This Application has not been deferred. Neither of these objections has merit and in any event are not reasons to adjourn the summary hearing.

7The applicant also argues that a number of issues raise a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Tribual and its staff. So for example the applicant alleges that I have lied and that this could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The applicant does not say how I have lied. An allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias is not a reason to adjourn the summary hearing.

8The applicant asserts that I have characterized him a vexatious litigant. This is not so. This is an issue for determination after submissions from the partes at the summary hearing. The applicant asserts that I have focussed on the “extraordinary” number of his Applications and have not considered the human rights issues the Applications raise. This is not so and in any event that is the purpose of the summary hearing. It is not a reason to adjourn the summary hearing.

9The applicant also argues that there has been no Order consolidating these Applications. The applicant asserts that this failure raises a reasonable apprehension of bias and therefore a loss of jurisdiction. It is not clear on what basis the applicant makes this claim. His assertion is unfounded. In a Case Assessment Direction issued on November 15, 2013 I ordered these Applications to be consolided by respondent and that they be heard together at the summary hearing stage. In any event this is not a reason to adjourn the summary hearing.

10I am not seized.