Hicks v. Ontario Ombudsman, 2021 ONSC 1765

CITATION: Hicks v. Ontario Ombudsman, 2021 ONSC 1765

COURT FILE: NO.: 344/20 DATE: 2021/03/10

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Hicks v. Ontario Ombudsman

COUNSEL: Mr. Hicks, self-represented

No one appearing for the respondent Ombudsman

BEFORE: Justice S. Corthorn

DATE: In writing

ENDORSEMENT

corthorn J.

Introduction

Introduction

1This matter does not arise out of any hearing, but rather out of Mr. Hicks’ recent communication with the Divisional Court. The Office of the Ombudsman was not advised of this matter and did not require counsel.

2In late 2020, Anthony Hicks was before this court on civil contempt proceedings. In an endorsement dated December 14, 2020, Justice Corbett, sitting as single judge of this court, disposed of matters related to Mr. Hicks’ civil contempt of court: Hicks v. Ontario Ombudsman, 2020 ONSC 7790. The contempt proceedings were brought to an end at that time, including with Mr. Hicks sentenced to time served of eight days (December 7 to 14, 2020).

3In the same endorsement, Justice Corbett identified that he was, at the time, case managing Mr. Hicks’ various proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice, including in Divisional Court. Justice Corbett anticipated that a case management judge would subsequently be appointed from the East Region. I have been appointed to case manage Mr. Hicks’ matters before the Superior Court of Justice, including Divisional Court.

4Mr. Hicks’ most recent communication with the court was, to my knowledge, to Justice Corbett in his capacity as a judge of the Divisional Court. I therefore rely on the most recent Divisional Court file as the context within which to respond to Mr. Hicks’ communication.

The Request

5In early February 2021, Mr. Hicks sent an email to the Divisional Court, to the attention of Justice Corbett. In that email, Mr. Hicks requests “permission” to bring an application for judicial review of a February 2, 2021 decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“the Board”). Mr. Hicks attached a copy of the decision to his February 2021 email. The decision is identified as OLRB Case No. 2464-20-ES (“the Decision”). The parties to the matter are Mr. Hicks as applicant, and Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc. and the Director of Employment Standards as respondents.

6In the Decision, the Board notes that in March 2020, Mr. Hicks was determined by the Board to be a vexatious litigant with respect to a different entity – Orangetheory Fitness: 2525274 Ontario Inc. o/a Orangetheory Fitness, 2020 25123. In addition, the Board concludes that the matters raised by Mr. Hicks in Case No. 2464-20-ES have been determined in one or more previously filed complaints: para. 4. The Board highlights that the allegations made in that case “were asserted [before] and adjudicated upon by the Board many years ago”: para. 6. Mr. Hicks’ application to the Board was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the Board’s processes: para. 7.

Vexatious Litigant Status

7Mr. Hicks has also been declared, by the Superior Court of Justice, to be a vexatious litigant. In August 2019, following an application by Mr. Hicks’ former employer, Goodlife Fitness Inc., Mr. Hicks was declared to be a vexatious litigant: Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc v. Hicks, 2019 ONSC 4942 (Goodlife Fitness). I presided over that application.

8The order made in Goodlife Fitness provides Mr. Hicks with clear direction as to what he is required to do if he wishes to commence a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice. Paragraph 2 of that order states as follows: “THIS COURT PROHIBITS Anthony Hicks, either directly or indirectly, from instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceedings previously instituted in any court, except and until such time as he has obtained leave by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to s. 140(3) of the [Courts of Justice Act] and as provided for in this order.”

Conclusion

9In summary, Mr. Hicks is not entitled to pursue an application for judicial review of the 2021 decision of the Board unless he (a) proceeds with an application for leave to do so pursuant to s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, and (b) is successful on that application. If Mr. Hicks intends to pursue such an application with respect to the proposed judicial review of the Board’s 2021 decision, he must bring the application for leave before me in the Superior Court of Justice.

10Mr. Hicks is well-aware that correspondence with the court is not permitted and I order that he shall immediately cease corresponding with the Superior Court of Justice, including the Divisional Court.

Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn

Released: March 10, 2021

CITATION: Hicks v. Ontario Ombudsman, 2021 ONSC 1765