Papouchine v. Named Respondent, 2015 HRTO 337

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexandre Papouchine Applicant

-and-

Named Respondent Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: March 17, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 337 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 Applications 2014-00055-VL and 2014-00056-VL. It also addresses his request for reconsideration in Application 2014-00053-VL.

2In 2014 HRTO 588 the applicant the Tribunal declared the applicant to be a vexatious litigant, ordering as follows:

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. 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.

APPLICATIONS 2014-00055-VL AND 2014-00056-VL

3The applicant brought three separate leave Applications against the same respondent. The Applications appeared to be identical, but in fact the first (Application 2014-00053-VL) concerned the cancellation of his “Employee Accident insurance,” while the latter two Applications (2014-00055-VL and 2014-00056-VL) deal with the cancellation of “group Life insurance” and “group LTD insurance.” The applicant alleges he applied for these various categories of insurance from the same carrier on the same day, and that he was informed that the respondent had cancelled this insurance on the same day.

4The reasoning set out in my previous Decision, Papouchine v. Named Respondent, 2014 HRTO 1441, applies equally to these two Applications. The applicant bears the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that these Applications should proceed. He has failed in his submissions to specify any reason why these Applications should be permitted to proceed given the lack of connection between the respondent’s conduct and the grounds cited. Leave to proceed with these two Applications is denied and they are dismissed.

RECONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION 2014-00053-VL

5The Tribunal’s powers of reconsideration are set out in s. 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended,:

(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

6In this case, the applicant has not been allowed to file his application. Without an application, there can be no “final” decision. Accordingly, there is no basis for engaging the reconsideration process.

7In any event, the Tribunal, in a separate case involving this applicant, recently had occasion to issue a Reconsideration Decision on its earlier decision to deny leave: Papouchine v. Named Respondents, 2015 HRTO 107. In that matter, the applicant made arguments similar to the ones made in this request for reconsideration. I adopt the Tribunal’s reasoning, found at para. 8 of that Reconsideraton Decision:

The applicant accuses me of “tampering with evidence” on the basis that I “removed” from my Decision many of the applicant’s arguments. He has also asked me to recuse myself for reasonable apprehension of bias. There is no basis for recusal or the applicant’s allegations of “tampering with evidence”. The applicant’s arguments are for the most part, a string of incomprehensible statements and quotations from various decisions, none of which bear on the issues before me. The applicant’s submissions have been carefully reviewed and considered and it does not constitute “tampering” of any kind that the Decision reflects some of the applicant’s arguments and not others. As I stated above, fundamentally, the applicant disagrees with my Decision.

8There is, likewise, no basis for the applicant’s argument that I am disqualified from making any decisions in matters respecting him or that my decision contains “elements of retaliation.” The fact that the applicant alleges discriminatory action against me or any other Tribunal member is an insufficient basis for recusal with respect to another application. In any event, I am not familiar with the content of Application 2014-18040-I.

9The applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.

ORDEr

10In sum, I have made the following orders:

a. For the reasons set out above, leave to file Applications 2014-00055-VL and 2014-00056-VL is denied and they are dismissed; and

b. The request for reconsideration of my decision to deny leave in Application 2014-00053-VL is denied.