COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Imona-Russel v. Zap, 2025 ONCA 161

DATE: 20250303

DOCKET: COA-24-CV-0775

Nordheimer, Gomery and Dawe JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Dr. William Imona-Russel

Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Stephen Zap

Defendant (Respondent)

Dr. William Imona-Russel, acting in person

Zachary Lanys, for the respondent

Heard: February 28, 2025

On appeal from the order of Justice Kristin Muszynski of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 12, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 3378.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] Dr. Imona-Russel appeals from the order of the motion judge that declined to appoint counsel for him and also struck out his statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action as well as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. We now provide our reasons.

[2] The appellant is currently incarcerated at a federal institution while serving a life sentence for first degree murder. He commenced this action for damages arising from a disciplinary proceeding that was presided over by the respondent. The appellant makes various allegations arising out of that proceeding including alleged breaches of his rights under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[3] On the first issue, the motion judge was correct to dismiss the appellant’s motion to have the court appoint counsel for him. Except for rare exceptions, there is no authority in the courts to appoint counsel in a civil proceeding. The appellant does not fall into any of those rare exceptions such as, for example, being mentally incapable.

[4] On the second issue, the motion judge found that the appellant had failed to plead any material facts in support of his various claims. The motion judge added that the contents of the statement of claim, on its surface, evidenced a proceeding that was frivolous and vexatious. She noted that this conclusion was consistent with the history of the appellant who has commenced many, many civil proceedings against the federal Crown and its staff in various courts.

[5] The appellant has failed to demonstrate any error in the motion judge’s analysis or conclusion. Indeed, much of what the appellant submitted at the hearing did not relate to the claim as alleged. The motion judge correctly noted that the Human Rights Code does not apply to federal institutions, and, in any event, there is no independent cause of action for breach of the Human Rights Code: Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362, at para. 64. The motion judge also correctly held that there were insufficient material facts pleaded to found an action against the respondent for breach of the Charter. Finally, there was a solid basis for the motion judge’s conclusion that the action was an abuse of process.

[6] It is for these reasons that the appeal was dismissed. The respondent is entitled to his costs of the appeal fixed in the requested amount of $500, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”

“S. Gomery J.A.”

“J. Dawe J.A.”