Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Hemchand v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2022 ONCA 330

Date: 2022-04-28

Docket: C69822 & C69828

Before: Benotto, Miller and Copeland JJ.A.

Between:

Ramlal Hemchand

Appellant

and

Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) and the Attorney General of Ontario

Respondents

Counsel:

Ramlal Hemchand, acting in person

Doug Letto, for the respondent Toronto Community Housing Corporation

Matthew Chung, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario

Heard: April 25, 2022 by videoconference

On appeal from the order of Justice Susan Vella of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 24, 2021.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant seeks to set aside the motion judge’s decision to dismiss his application pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

[2] Rule 2.1.01(1) provides that the court may dismiss a proceeding if it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.

[3] The underlying application seeks damages and injunctive relief for alleged mistreatment and human rights violations committed against the appellant. The claim appears to arise primarily because he was denied a housing subsidy, assessed an increase in rent, and then “targeted” by the respondent housing corporation, all of which he submits caused him physical illness.

[4] The motion judge directed herself in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the rule. She was guided by this court’s decision in Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733. She concluded, at para. 7, that:

This is a case which is not, in my view, a close call and is appropriate to disposition by the court under the attenuated process set out by r. 2.1. The notice of application bears the hallmarks of querulous litigant behaviour; for example, it features accusations that conduct by the TCHC has caused the appellant’s heart attack and congestion of his lungs, accuses employees of the TCHC of a conspiracy in engaging in a series of vindictive acts including entering his unit without permission, “gossiping”, “having fun at my expenses etc.”, and “precipitating stress, illnesses”. The applicant levies a number of personal attacks against several employees of the TCHC.

[5] We see no error in the motion judge’s analysis and no reason to interfere with her discretionary decision.

[6] The appellant issued a Notice of Appeal in September 2021. One week later he issued a second appeal from the same decision. All parties agree that appeal C69822 be quashed.

[7] For these reasons, the appeal in C69828 is dismissed. The appeal in C69822 is quashed.

[8] Although the respondents sought only nominal costs, this is not a case for costs and none are awarded.

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“B. Miller J.A.”

“J. Copeland J.A.”