Paul Rochford

The respondents requested that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant following the dismissal of his human rights application for abuse of process.

The applicant had a history of filing similar applications and engaging in abusive conduct towards respondents and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the test for vexatious litigants and found that the applicant's persistent, inappropriate behaviour and repeated unsuccessful applications warranted the declaration.

The applicant was declared a vexatious litigant and must seek leave before filing future applications.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the applicant's persistent use of abusive, insulting, and threatening language towards the respondents, their counsel, and the Tribunal.

The applicant argued his language was justified by the respondents' alleged actions and his medical conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct, which included veiled threats of physical violence, constituted an abuse of process that could not be excused as an accommodation for his disability.

The application was dismissed, and the Tribunal deferred its decision on whether to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant pending further submissions.

The applicants, minors acting through their mother as next friend, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent swim club discriminated against them based on race and subjected them to reprisals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address preliminary issues, including timeliness, a request to amend the application, and whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations outside the one-year statutory deadline.

The request to amend the application to add new allegations for one applicant (R.B.) was denied, and her application was dismissed.

The request to amend for the other applicant (J.B.) was granted.

The Tribunal found that J.B.'s allegation of racial discrimination had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to a merits hearing, but dismissed his allegation of reprisal.

The respondents requested a two-week extension of time to file their Response because the Tribunal's website was inaccessible, preventing them from accessing the necessary forms.

The applicant objected to the extension.

The Tribunal granted the extension, noting its power under Rule 1.7 to lengthen time limits and finding the request appropriate given the website issues and the lack of prejudice to the applicant.