HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Weihua Shi
Applicant
-and-
Holcim (Canada) Inc. and Anna Maccani
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Shi v. Holcim (Canada) Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Weihua Shi, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the applicant, whom the Tribunal declared to be a vexatious litigant with respect to the respondents, should be granted leave (permission) to file a new Application against them.
BACKGROUND
2On November 6, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2013 HRTO 1865, which made the following findings at paras. 25-26:
I am satisfied on an objective standard that the applicant has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings. Given that the applicant has filed essentially the same Application with this Tribunal three times, views the filing of each subsequent Application as a form of internal appeal, refuses to file an Application for Judicial Review with the Divisional Court even though she knows how to do so, and did not undertake not to file the same Application with this Tribunal again, her conduct falls squarely within the factors and standard discussed by the Tribunal in Dai v. Presbyterian Church in Canada, 2012 HRTO 1975 (see also Dai v. Presbyterian Church in Canada, 2013 ONSC 6650).
Accordingly, I find that it is appropriate to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant with respect to the respondents, and require her to obtain permission from the Tribunal to file further applications against the respondents. I appreciate that the applicant is a layperson who does not have legal training, but it is simply not acceptable for her to continue imposing costs on the respondents and using the Tribunal’s resources by filing the same Application over and over again.
3The Tribunal also made the following orders at para. 27:
(…)
The applicant is declared to be a vexatious litigant with respect to the respondents, and is required to obtain permission from an adjudicator of the Tribunal to file further applications against the respondents; and
If the applicant requests permission to file a future application against the respondents, she must file a complete Application, and include written submissions that explain why the Application is a legitimate assertion of her Code rights, is not vexatious, and is not an abuse of process.
4On July 4, 2014, the applicant filed a new Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of her family status and marital status with respect to employment, and subjected her to reprisal. The allegations against the respondents in the new Application are essentially the same as those raised in her three previous Applications against the respondents, which were all dismissed. See Shi v. Holcim (Canada), 2012 HRTO 416, reconsideration denied, 2012 HRTO 934; Shi v. Holcim (Canada) Inc., 2013 HRTO 306; and Shi v. Holcim (Canada) Inc., 2013 HRTO 1865, reconsideration denied, 2014 HRTO 450.
ANALYSIS
5The onus rests with the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the new Application should be accepted and processed. See Roy v. Named Respondents, 2014 HRTO 917 at para. 10.
6In a cover letter attached to her Application, the applicant stated that there are written submissions in her Application which explain why the Application is a legitimate assertion of her Code rights, is not vexatious, and is not an abuse of process. Having reviewed those submissions, I disagree with the applicant that they provide such an explanation. Rather, they are essentially a repetition of the submissions that she made in her Request for Reconsideration of the Decision dismissing her third Application. See Shi v. Holcim (Canada) Inc., 2013 HRTO 1865, reconsideration denied, 2014 HRTO 450.
7I am therefore not satisfied that the new Application against the respondents is a legitimate assertion of the applicant’s Code rights, is not vexatious, and is not an abuse of process.
ORDER
8The applicant is denied leave to file a new Application against the respondents.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of May, 2015.
“Signed by”
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair