CITATION: The Regional Municipality of Peel v. Volnyansky, 2017 ONSC 1692
COURT FILE NO.: DC-16-132-JR
DATE: 20170314
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: LUBOV VOLNYANSKY
V.
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES, THE DIRECTOR OF ONTARIO WORKS PROGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES, AND THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL
BEFORE: Daley RSJ.
HEARD: In Chambers
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] This is a matter pending hearing before the Divisional Court at Brampton.
[2] This application for judicial review is brought by the self represented applicant wherein she seeks to set aside the decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal Ontario (HRTO) dated November this 27th, 2014 and its reconsideration decision of January 21, 2016.
[3] The applicant also seeks other ancillary relief is set out in the Notice of Application for Judicial Review.
[4] Counsel for the respondents HRTO and the Region of Peel have each filed a submission under Rule 2.1.01 and the applicant has filed a 10 page submission with multiple attachments.
[5] As has been noted, the court’s consideration of a request pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 (6) must be limited to a determination as to whether or not the pleadings in question are, on their face, frivolous, vexatious or an abusive process and as such Rule 2.1 can be invoked with the resulting consequences.
[6] The applicant’s submission under Rule 2.1.01 is in reality unsworn evidence regarding her complaints with respect to a number of prior decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal and the review of those to decisions by the HRTO and various courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada on a leave application.
[7] Counsel for the respondents seeking relief under Rule 2.1.01 in respect of the pending judicial review application make the submission that this application is essentially an attempt to relitigate adjudicative decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal and in making that assertion they have identified the following cases wherein this applicant has asserted the same arguments over and over again:
• Volnyansky v. The Queen in Right of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 3084
• Volnyansky v. Peel (Regional Municipality), 2010 ONSC 6008
• Volnyansky v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 ONSC 6013
• Volnyansky v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 ONSC 434
• Volnyansky v. Peel (Regional Municipality), 2012 16582 (SCC)
• Volnyansky v. Peel (Regional Municipality), 2011 HRTO 833
• Volnyansky v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 1171
• Volnyansky v. Peel (Regional Municipality), 2013 HRTO 738
• Volnyansky v. Peel (Regional Municipality), 2014 HRTO 520
• Volnyansky v. Peel (Regional Municipality), 2014 HRTO 1716
• Volnyansky v. Regional Municipality of Peel, 2014 ONSC 6193
• Volnyansky v. Peel (Regional Municipality), 2016 HRTO 90
[8] As noted by Myers J. in Covenoho v. Ceridan Canada, 2015 ONSC 2468, it is open to the requesting party to refer to reported cases as between the parties in the action, however he makes the very important point when he states as follows: “But if the judge is required to work his or her way through six cases to discern whether the plaintiff can be said to be relitigating than the pleadings are not frivolous, vexatious or an abusive process on their faces and rule 2.1 ought not to be invoked.”
[9] None of the cases referred to by counsel for the respondents were provided to the court by counsel, although a few were included in the attachments to the applicant’s submission, however this court is in exactly the position referred to by Myers J. above, namely it would be necessary to review at least 12, if not 14 prior decisions of the HRTO and several decisions of the court in order to determine if the applicant is in fact relitigating matters already determined in these prior proceedings.
[10] In the result, the respondents’ requests under Rule 2.1.01 are dismissed and the interim stay of this application as imposed is hereby vacated.
[11] The applicant is entitled to one set of costs on a partial indemnity basis to be determined following submissions as to costs.
[12] The applicant shall file submissions as to costs of no longer than two pages, within 15 days followed by similar submissions on behalf of the respondents within 15 days thereafter.
Daley RSJ.
DATE: March 14, 2017
CITATION: The Regional Municipality of Peel v. Volnyansky, 2017 ONSC 1692
COURT FILE NO.: DC-16-132-JR
DATE: 20170314
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: LUBOV VOLNYANSKY
V.
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES, THE DIRECTOR OF ONTARIO WORKS PROGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES, AND THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL
BEFORE: Daley RSJ.
ENDORSEMENT
Daley RSJ.
DATE: March 14, 2017