Court File and Parties

CITATION: Bouragba v. Conseil des Écoles Publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario, 2016 ONSC 6810

COURT FILE NO.: 16-69785

DATE: 2016-11-01

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: TARIK BOURAGBA, AHMED BOURAGBA, DJAMILA HASSANI, YASSIN BOURAGBA, represented by AHMED BOURAGBA, Plaintiffs

AND

CONSEIL DES ÉCOLES PUBLIQUES DE L’EST DE L’ONTARIO (CSDCEO), STEPHANE VACHON, DIANE LAMOUREUX, ANNIE SICARD, OTTAWA CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, NORMA MCDONALD, OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, KEVIN GILMORE, ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, GENEVIEVE DEBANE, ONTARIO MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, DENIS CHARTRAND, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS, RICHARD LEWKO, PAUL MARSHALL, Defendants

HEARD: By Requistion

Endorsement

[1] This requisition was referred to me by the Registrar’s Office pursuant to rule 2.1 .01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request of the Defendants, Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario (CEPEO), the Ottawa Carleton District School Board, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario (improperly named as the Ministry of Education) and Denis Chartrand, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and Genevieve Debane and the Ontario College of Teachers. The Plaintiff, Ahmed Bouragba, is aware of these requests and has filed a lengthy response.

[2] This proceeding was commenced by Notice of Action dated and issued on August 29, 2016. There are two Statements of Claim; one dated September 9, 2016, purportedly brought under the Simplified Rule Procedure and another Statement of Claim dated September 12, 2016. These are found in a Volume of Materials filed on September 12, 2016 and labelled “Statement of Claim”. A number of affidavits are included. The purpose of those Affidavits is not clear and I do not consider these as part of the pleadings.

[3] The Court file also includes a Notice of Motion and a second Volume of Materials of 424 pages in length. While not described as such, this large volume appears to be Factum in support of the Motion. The Notice of Motion seeks an injunction allowing the Plaintiff, Tarik Bouragba, to resume immediately resume his interrupted education. By endorsement dated September 13, 2016, Kane J. endorsed that the Plaintiffs’ motion could proceed on an emergency basis, but only after service on all of the Defendants.

[4] It does not appear that all of the Defendants have been served. There are four Affidavits of Service by Jordan Pepin; three dated September 22, 2016, and one dated September 29, 2016. In each of these he deposes:

“Per the directions of Ahmed Bouragba, the documents were served only on the organizations named, not any individual defendants”

[5] The motion remains unscheduled and unheard. While the same Affidavits of Service indicate that a Statement of Claim was served, it is not clear which Statement of Claim was served, nor does it appear that the Notice of Action was served as required by Rule 14.03.

[6] Although counsel for CEPEO has addressed correspondence to the Court, I have limited my response to the written Rule 2.1 requests to a review of the more substantive Statement of Claim only. While not expressly seeking a declaration, this Statement of Claim seeks the following relief:

1. The Plaintiffs’ claim is for the violation of the rights of Tarik Bouragba to access and attend public education as framed in legislation, institutional conspiracy and psychological and mental damage to the victims;

2. The Defendants assume the cost of the proceeding as it is made in the public interest.

3. Damages to the Plaintiffs in the amount of $9 million for Charter violation, reprisal, discrimination, fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of mental distress, aggravated damages, punitive damages, the cost of this action on a substantial indemnity basis, inclusive of HST; lost graduation with his peers, loss of career and unpredictable repercussion that may amount to suicide action.

4. Public apology to Tarik and Yassin Bouragba and all students of Ontario;

5. Publication of the case in public domain;

6. Public inquiry or Investigation of adjudicator, Genevieve Debane and the Ontario College of Teachers to save the public. Investigation of the Ministry of Education is highly recommended.

7. Recommendation to limit the school board’s lawyers’ excess of income from school boards’ budget funded by taxpayers to fight parents and students rights to education services.

8. Recommendation to legislators limiting adjudicator’s immunity in the absence of serious public accountability in the Province of Ontario.

9. The Plaintiffs’ claim breaches of ss. 12, 15 and 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and various provisions of the Education Act of Ontario.

[7] Although there are four Plaintiffs, it is apparent from my review of the Claim that the action focuses on the Plaintiff, Tarik Bouragba, who is represented by his father, Ahmed. It appears that Tarik was suspended from school on October 15, 2014. As a result of that suspension, it further appears that the Plaintiff, Ahmed Bouragba, has complained to the CEPEO, the Ontario College of Teachers, the Ministry of Education, the Ombudsman of Ontario as well as to the other two school boards named as Defendants in this action. The Claim goes on to reference two unsuccessful applications to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Requests for reconsideration of those decisions were rejected. The pleading focuses almost exclusively on those proceedings. It is not apparent from a review of the Statement of Claim if a judicial review of those decisions has been sought.

[8] Other than claims regarding the Plaintiff, Tarik Bouragba, it is not clear what cause(s) of action the other Plaintiffs have against which of the numerous Defendants and there is a notable absence on any material facts pleaded in support of the various claims against the seven organizations and the nine individual Defendants. This Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the Plaintiffs in paras. 4, 6, 7 and 8 of their Prayer for Relief.

[9] In Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497, Justice Myers considered the availability of Rule 2.1 and looked to the test applicable under s. 140 of the Court of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C. 43. (Vexatious litigant). He said at para. 14:

14. The case law has identified a number of common attributes of a vexatious litigant under section 140 including, but not limited to, the following:

a) Bringing multiple proceedings to try to re-determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction;

b) Rolling forward grounds and issues from prior proceedings to repeat and supplement them in later proceedings including bringing proceedings against counsel who have acted for or against them in earlier proceedings;

c) Persistent pursuit of unsuccessful appeals;

d) Failure to pay costs awards of prior proceedings;

e) Bringing proceedings for a purpose other than the assertion of legitimate rights, including to harass or oppress others;

f) Bringing proceedings where no reasonable person would expect to obtain the relief sought.

[10] Some of these attributes are present here, and on the face of these pleadings, recourse to the attenuated process available in Rule 2.1 appears to be appropriate.

[11] I, therefore, make the following orders:

• Pursuant to sub-rule 2.1 .01(3)(1), the Registrar is directed to give notice to the Plaintiffs in Form 2.1 A that the Court is considering making an order under sub-rule 2.1 .01 dismissing the action;

• Pending the outcome of the written hearing under Rule 2.1 or further order of the Court, the Plaintiffs’ action is stayed pursuant to s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act;

• The Registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the Plaintiffs’ written submissions if delivered in accordance with sub-rule 2.1 .01(3);

• In addition to the service by mail required by sub-rule 2.1 .01(4), the Registrar is to serve a copy of this Endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the Plaintiffs and counsel for the Defendants by email if it has their email addresses.

Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

Date: November 1, 2016

CITATION: Bouragba v. Conseil des Écoles Publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario, 2016 ONSC 6810

COURT FILE NO.: 16-69785

DATE: 20161101

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: TARIK BOURAGBA, AHMED BOURAGBA, DJAMILA HASSANI, YASSIN BOURAGBA, represented by AHMED BOURAGBA, Plaintiffs

AND

CONSEIL DES ÉCOLES PUBLIQUES DE L’EST DE L’ONTARIO (CSDCEO), STEPHANE VACHON, DIANE LAMOUREUX, ANNIE SICARD, OTTAWA CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, NORMA MCDONALD, OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, KEVIN GILMORE, ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, GENEVIEVE DEBANE, ONTARIO MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, DENIS CHARTRAND, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS, RICHARD LEWKO, PAUL MARSHALL, Defendants

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

ENDORSEMENT

Beaudoin J.

Released: November 1, 2016