Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 18-76243
DATE: 20180525
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: ANTHONY HICKS, Plaintiff
AND
GOODLIFE FITNESS CENTRES INC., THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR, and THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
HEARD: By Requisition
Endorsement
[1] Two separate requisitions were 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 written requests from the Defendant Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc. (“Goodlife”) and the Defendant and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”). The Plaintiff was copied with each of those requests. The Plaintiff has filed a response to the requisition filed by the HRTO.
[2] I have reviewed the lengthy Statement of Claim in this matter. It is apparent that the Plaintiff’s primary claim is against the Defendant, Goodlife arising from his previous employment as personal trainer for that company. His claim for damages targets Goodlife alone. He goes on at length to detail allegations of racial discrimination that he endured while employed in that capacity. He alleges at paragraph 72:
On November 27, 2013, Mr. Hicks asserted that Goodlife had repudiated his employment contract and that he had been constructively dismissed.
[3] The Plaintiff goes on to state at paragraph 79:
Due to the severity of the issues that arose from the Goodlife termination, Mr. Hicks originally pulled his civil claim from the Ontario Superior Court to have it heard at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Ministry of Labour.
[4] On the face of it, the claim against Goodlife is out of time and it has already been withdrawn form this Court. For those reasons alone, the claim against that Defendant appears on its face to be frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process.
[5] The Statement of Claim goes on to discuss a summary hearing that was conducted by the HRTO and refers to proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. He complains of unlawful decisions and reviews by those tribunals.
[6] Starting at paragraph 104 of the Statement of Claim and in a further 134 paragraphs, the Plaintiff sets out a series of allegations against employers and individuals which include allegations of racial discrimination, stalking and harassment, and cover-ups of deep corruption. These allegations target subsequent employers, the police, prominent law firms, numerous lawyers, the Crown Attorney’s office and others. It is not apparent how any of these allegations relate in any way to the claims originally asserted against the named Defendants.
[7] The Defendant HRTO, it is not a suitable entity. The HRTO is a statutory body exercising quasi-judicial functions. As such, it lacks the legal status and capacity to be sued for actions taken in carrying out those functions; and for this reason, the claim as against this Defendant also appears to be frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process. The Plaintiff’s early response to the HRTO’s requisition does not address this fatal flaw in his claim.
[8] The Ontario Ministry of Labour is improperly named as a Defendant and any allegations in the Statement of Claim appear to relate to decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and it would similarly lack the legal status and capacity to be sued for actions taken in the exercise of its functions.
[9] I find that the attenuated procedure available under Rule 2.1 is appropriate.
[10] I therefore make the following orders:
- Pursuant to sub-rule 2.1 .01(3)(1), the Registrar is directed to give notice to the Plaintiff in Form 2.1A 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 Plaintiff’s action is stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43;
- The Registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants by email if it has their email addresses.
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
Date: May 25, 2018
COURT FILE NO.: 18-76243
DATE: 20180525
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: ANTHONY HICKS, Plaintiff
AND
GOODLIFE FITNESS CENTRES INC., THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR, and THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
ENDORSEMENT
Beaudoin J.
Released: May 25, 2018