Court File and Parties

CITATION: Stukanov v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2020 ONSC 4847

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: TBA

DATE: 20200811

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Stukanov v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Igor Stukanov, self-represented Applicant No one appearing, for the HRTO Jordan Routliff, for PayPal Canada

Heard: August 12, 2020

Endorsement

[1] This endorsement reflects a teleconference conducted August 12, 2020.

[2] Mr Stukanov has brought an application for judicial review to challenge a reconsideration decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (2020 HRTO 394) upholding an earlier Tribunal decision dismissing Mr Stukanov’s complaint against PayPal Canada Inc. (2019 HRTO 386).

[3] Mr Stukanov’s Notice of Application is defective on its face. In particular:

(a) It fails to name PayPal as a party. As the respondent to the underlying complaint before the Tribunal, PayPal is a necessary respondent in this court.

(b) The Notice states that the Tribunal erred in law in its reconsideration decision. It does not state what the alleged legal errors were.

(c) The Notice states that the Tribunal denied principles of natural justice and fairness. It does not say how the Tribunal conducted its process unfairly.

(d) The Notice states that the Tribunal’s decision is unreasonable. It does not say in what way the decision was unreasonable.

(e) The Notice states that the Tribunal “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a capricious manner and without regard for the material before it.” The Notice does not identify the allegedly erroneous finding of fact or how the Tribunal erred in reaching its finding.

(f) The Notice states that the applicant will rely upon “[d]ocuments in the public domain” in support of his application. As a rule, only documents that were part of the record before the Tribunal are included in the record on judicial review before this court. The limited exceptions to this principle do not appear to apply to this case. If the applicant seeks to rely on documents that were not before the Tribunal, then he will need to specify those documents in detail and likely he will need to move for an order permitting him to file fresh evidence on the application.

[4] Mr Stukanov is self-represented. He should have a reasonable opportunity to cure the defects in his Notice of Application. The Notice of Application is struck out with leave to amend to deliver a fresh Notice of Application curing the defects set out above. This fresh amended Notice of Application shall be served on HRTO and PayPal by email by August 21, 2020, and a copy sent afterwards to the court.

[5] The parties shall attend a further case management conference before me which will be scheduled by Divisional Court staff upon direction from me after receipt of Mr Stukanov’s fresh amended Notice of Application.

[6] There was a brief discussion of the underlying application, which concerns Mr Stukanov’s allegation that PayPal discriminated against him in refusing to pay him through a bank in Ontario in $US. The amount allegedly owed was US$5,000. Mr Stukanov has been told about the risks for costs in an application in this court – that a losing party could ordinarily expect to pay legal costs to the winning side, typically ranging between $2,500 to $10,000. Mr Stukanov indicated that he understood the financial risks of litigation in this court.

[7] Finally, Mr Stukanov has claimed damages in his notice of application for reputational harm suffered as a result of PayPal’s refusal to pay him in $US. Mr Stukanov has been told that on a judicial review from the HRTO, if he succeeds the ordinary order would return the case to the HRTO for disposition there on the merits. This court would not have jurisdiction to make a freestanding damages award in the circumstances of this case. Further, the stated basis of the claim appears to have no legal foundation: Mr Stukanov advised that his reputation, and a self-employed businessperson, was adversely affected because he had to make the claim: as he described it, people do not like to do business with people who make legal claims against other people, and so being forced to pursue a claim against PayPal to pursue his rights has been detrimental to his reputation and has caused him losses. Mr Stukanov has been told by this court that this claim, as described, is simply not tenable in law.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: August 12, 2020