CITATION: Mihundukulasuriya v. Aramark Canada Inc., 2023 ONSC 4625
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 640/22
DATE: 20220707
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
LAKSAMAN FERNANDO
Mr Mihundukulasuriya, self-represented
MIHUNDUKULASURIYA
Applicant
– and –
ARAMARK CANADA INC.[^1]
Respondents
In Chambers, In Writing
REASONS FOR DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
[1] The case management teleconference scheduled for 3 pm on July 7, 2023, is cancelled. The application, and the motion for an extension of time in which to bring the application, is dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. In light of the litigation history in this court between the applicant and Aramark, the court concludes that no purpose would be served in obtaining written submissions of the parties on the r. 2.1 issue. The claims in the application have been disposed of, the basis for an extension to pursue litigation against Aramark has been disposed of, all in the prior proceedings before this court. The applicant's claims against Aramark are over, and the principle of finality requires that Aramark - and the several Tribunals that have adjudicated the applicant's claims at first instance - should not be put to further time or expense responding to these claims.
[2] The applicant previously sought to commence an application for judicial review of a 2016 decision of the Human Rights Tribunal on January 12, 2022, more than five years after the HRTO decision. This court dismissed that application pursuant to r. 2.1 after obtaining submissions from the applicant: 2022 ONSC 4623. The applicant then commenced precisely the same application on November 14, 2022. Unaware of this past history, a triage judge of this court directed a case management teleconference for July 7, 2023 for the purpose of considering and scheduling a motion for an extension to bring the application that was commenced in November 2022.
[3] This issue has already been finally determined by this court. Bringing precisely the same application in November that was previously dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1 is an abuse of process.
[4] The case management teleconference scheduled for July 7, 2023 is cancelled. The application commenced November 14, 2022 (640/22) is dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
[5] The applicant has been litigating the end of his employment with Aramark - which happened in 2014 - in multiple fora - for seven years. His claims have been dismissed by the OLRB, the WSIAT, and the HRTO. Appeals or reviews of those decisions have been dismissed in this court: 2022 ONSC 4623 (HRTO), 2022 ONSC 4563 (OLRB) and 2023 ONSC 2040 (HRTO).
[6] Enough is enough. I appreciate that the applicant does not accept the tribunal findings against his claims, but his claims have now been adjudicated and disposed of on a final basis.
[7] This court orders that the applicant may not bring or continue any proceedings in the Divisional Court against Aramark, or against any other person or tribunal in relation to his employment with or termination of employment with Aramark, except with prior written permission of an Administrative Judge of the Divisional Court or their designate. Permission may be sought by way of an email or letter no longer than three pages in length, to which are attached no more than ten pages of attachments.
Released by Email: July 7, 2023
Formal Endorsement Released: August 10, 2023
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 640/22
DATE: 20220707
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett J.
BETWEEN:
LAKSAMAN FERNANDO MIHUNDUKULASURIYA
Applicant
– and –
ARAMARK CANADA LTD.
Respondents
ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Corbett J.
Released by Email: July 7, 2023
Formal Endorsement Released: August 10, 2023
[^1]: The applicant lists “Aramark Food Services Toronto” as the respondent. I consider it unnecessary to spend resources determining the correct legal name of the respondent for the purposes of this endorsement, and have used the corporate name that arises in prior litigation referenced in this endorsement.