Citation: Bajor v. HRTO, 2019 ONSC 6661

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 19-562

DATE: 20191119

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: OLIVER BAJOR, Applicant

-and-

THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO, Respondent

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ at Toronto: November 19, 2019

ENDORSEMENT

[1] By endorsement dated October 29, reported at 2019 ONSC 6273, the court directed the registrar to provide notice to Dr. Bajor that it was considering dismissing this application under Rule 2.1 for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court. Dr. Bajor has delivered written submissions as provided by the rule.

[2] In this application, Dr. Bajor seeks judicial review of the alleged failure of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to release its decision on his motion for interim relief in his application against Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre under HTRO File No. 2019-35581-1. The tribunal has now released its decision. It appears from Dr. Bajor’s submissions that he was not successful in convincing the tribunal that it should order the clinic to provide the medical services as sought by him on an interim basis pending the hearing of his complaint on the merits.

[3] Dr. Bajor seeks a number of other heads of relief aimed at challenging the processes and rules of the tribunal.

[4] Dr. Bajor relies heavily on his disabled and his self-represented statuses to require a hearing of this application. However, he acknowledges in para. 34 of his submissions that the application has been rendered moot by the delivery of the interim decision by the tribunal. He also recognizes in his submissions that to challenge the interim decision of the tribunal would require amendment to his application or a new one. That would be true if Dr. Bajor was entitled to challenge interim tribunal decisions. But the law is well-settled that this court does not generally review interim decisions. The court hears judicial review from final decisions as a rule. Concerns that arose along the way to the final decision, if they remain relevant, can be raised then. Dr. Bajor seeks interim relief because he describes his situation and need for medical attention as urgent. Yet he states at para. 47 of his submissions that the clinic has deprived him of his entitlement to urgently needed medical care for 1½ years. While in no way undermining the seriousness or the severity of Dr. Bajor’s health concerns, there can be no temporal urgency to this dispute. I take judicial notice of the availability of emergency medical services in Ontario including for those with mobility problems.

[5] In Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, the court of appeal confirmed that a proceeding will be dismissed under Rule 2.1 only where its frivolous nature is apparent on the pleadings and where the pleadings provide a basis for resorting to the attenuated process provided by the rule. The reference to “pleadings” in this context must include the material properly filed on the Rule 2.1 review

[6] Dr. Bajor’s material does not raise a cause of action or a claim that can be resolved in legal proceedings. He describes the interim decision of the tribunal with many aggressive adjectives. Despite his efforts to distinguish on its facts the Court of Appeal’s decision in Van Sluytman v Muskoka (District Municipality) 2018 ONCA 32, I find that this application and Dr. Bajor’s submissions fall squarely within the type of unhelpful discourse referred to in para 9 of that decision.

[7] The challenge to the tribunal’s alleged failure to produce an interim decision is now moot. Dr. Bajor’s characterization of his serious disagreements with the interim decision on the evidence does not provide a basis for continuing this application before the main hearing is determined. Moreover, Dr. Bajor’s submissions make plain the desirability of dealing with this matter summarily under Rule 2.1.

[8] Dr. Bajor has identified no legal basis to challenge the constitution or rules of the Human Rights Tribunal. Moreover, recognizing that Dr. Bajor is self-represented, I have applied an independent mind to the question of whether there may be available causes of action to support the relief sought by Dr. Bajor in his notice of application for judicial review. With the delivery of the interim decision by the tribunal, I cannot find any remaining cause of action. In my view the application is frivolous in the sense that it cannot succeed as there is no legal basis for the relief sought.

[9] Accordingly, the application is dismissed. No costs.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: November 19, 2019