R v. COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA, 2015 QCCA 1862

Poplawski c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse 2015 QCCA 1862 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-025666-157 (500-53-000390-136) DATE: November 10, 2015 PRESEN T: THE HONOURABLE GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. SLAWOMIR POPLAWSKI PETITIONER v.

COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE RESPONDENT and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC IMPLEADED PARTY JUDGMENT [ 1 ] I am tasked to adjudicate a motion presented by Slawomir Poplawski seeking leave to appeal of a judgment dismissing a verbal motion to obtain the recusal of the Honourable Ann-Marie Jones, President of the Human Rights Tribunal, in the context of a hearing held on October 13, 2015. [ 2 ] This hearing had been scheduled following Mr. Poplawski’s initial request for postponement that Hugues, J.C.Q. granted on August 18, 2015. Although Mr.

Poplawski was not present in Court that day, the content of his motion for postponement was considered along with his affidavit, stating that “he was not able to attend as being out of town”. Hugues, J.C.Q. concluded that he had a valid ground under

section 122 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and therefore granted the postponement. [ 3 ] Mr. Poplawski had described his availabilities in an email of July 15, 2015 in which he stated that “the most convenient for me will be having this case heard at least one week“ after September 28, 2015. Considering that the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse had served its Declinatory Motion by both email and bailiff on Mr.

Poplawski and that it did not appear to require any lengthy evidence, Hugues, J.C.Q. fixed the new hearing on October 13, 2015 at 9:30am and ordered the Commission to serve his judgment on Mr Poplawski by both email and bailiff. [ 4 ] According to the minutes of the hearing that took place before the Human Rights Tribunal on October 13, 2015, which were filed by the petitioner in support of his motion for leave to appeal, at 9:45 am, Jones, J.C.Q. took note of Mr.

Poplawski’s representations concerning the unreasonable delay for his new hearing and stated that he could raise this point when making his final submissions. [ 5 ] Mr. Poplawski asserts that, as a result of his “new” request for postponement being denied, he immediately sought to recuse Jones, J.C.Q., which she dismissed without further explanation.

He claims that as a result of making additional representations before her, Jones, J.C.Q. chose to render a more exhaustive judgment, in which she still declined to recuse herself. [ 6 ] The minutes themselves only refer to a single request for recusation which occurred at 10:19 am. According to the minutes, the motion was dismissed after Jones, J.C.Q. stated that Mr.

Poplawski had been informed of the possibility of presenting a new motion for subpoenas for the purpose of a hearing on the merits of the case, that he had been given explanations as to the proceedings, and that proof of service of the Commission's motion to dismiss (sic) had been made along with the proof of service of the August 18, 2015 judgment scheduling the new hearing date. Jones, J. also made reference to explanations she had given to Mr.

Poplawski. [ 7 ] Unfortunately, these explanations are not detailed in the minutes and the petitioner has not taken the initiative of filing the transcript of the hearing in support of the allegations of his motion, as required under

article 22 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeal in Civil Matters . He contends that the judge would have acted in a partial and improper manner towards him or that her decision not to recuse herself was unreasonable or flawed. Yet, there is nothing in the documents attached to his motion to suggest that this was the case. [ 8 ] The petitioner also argues that the postponement was denied to him unreasonably. It appears, however, that such decision was the logical result of the previous judgment Hughes, J.C.Q. rendered granting Mr. Poplawski’s own request for postponement and fixing the hearing date in accordance with his own availabilities.

[ 9 ] As a result, I am unable to conclude that Mr. Poplawski was treated in a partial or an unfair manner by the President of the Human Rights Tribunal, or that there was any merit to his request for her recusation so as to enable me to conclude that the interests of justice would be served by granting him leave to appeal. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 10 ] DISMISSES the Petitioner's motion for leave to appeal the judgment dismissing his request to recuse the Honourable Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q.; [ 11 ] WITH COSTS . GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. Mr.

Slawomir Poplawski In person Mtre Stéphanie Fournier COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE For the respondent Date of hearing: October 28, 2015