2019 QCCA 110, 2019 QCCA 110

Olumide c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse 2019 QCCA 110 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027927-185 (550-17-010624-185) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: JANUARY 21, 2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES CHAMBELRAND , J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE , J.A. PATRICK HEALY , J.A. PETITIONER ADE OLUMIDE IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE Mtre KATHRIN FELICITAS PETER (Bois Drapeau Bourdeau)

DESCRIPTION : 3 rd Amended application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on October 25, 2018 by the Honourable Justice Suzanne Tessier of the Superior Court, District of Gatineau (Articles 30, para 2 and 357 C.C.P .) Amended application for permission to present indispensable new evidence (Article 380 C.C.P .) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 11 :28 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 11:28 Submissions by Mr. Olumide. 11:52 Recess. 12:04 Resumption of the hearing. 12:04 By the Court: judgment – see page 3.

Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT On the amended Motion to adduce new evidence. [ 1 ] Upon reading the motion, it was unclear whether the purpose of the new evidence which the petitioner was seeking to adduce was to convince this Court of the opportunity to grant him leave to appeal or whether it was submitted for the purpose of the appeal on the merits itself.

At the hearing, the petitioner indicated that it was submitted for both purposes. [ 2 ] Regardless, the petitioner fails to demonstrate that any such evidence is either new or indispensable for either purposes and, for this reason, fails to meet the requirement of

article 380 C.C.P . [ 3 ] The motion is denied. On the third amended Motion for leave to appeal of the judgment. [ 4 ] The motion for leave is governed by

article 30, para. 2

(3) C.C.P . given that the judgment is one that dismisses a judicial application because of its abusive nature. Leave is only granted, pursuant to paragraph 3 of

article 30, if the petitioner shows that “the matter at issue is one that should be submitted to the court / la question en jeu en est une qui doit être soumise à la cour”. This is the case, in particular, if it involves a question of principle or a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting jurisprudence. [ 5 ] In the case at hand, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (CDPDJ) rejected the petitioner’s application for want of jurisdiction regarding the refusal of his candidacy at the Conservative Party because of race and ethnicity.

After circumscribing the issues raised by the petitioner and the nature of his recourse, the Superior Court judge concluded that his judicial application in damages for issues related to racism (judgment a quo, para. 4) directed against the CDPDJ contained unsubstantiated

allegations, vexatious affirmations, as well as frivolous and repetitious arguments that had no bearing on the case. The judge of first instance concluded that the application was abusive and that it should be dismissed. [ 6 ] In his third amended Motion for leave to appeal of the judgment, the petitioner essentially repeats the same arguments which were dismissed by the Superior Court. Unfortunately, his motion raises no issues that merit the attention of the Court. Leave to appeal is denied as a result.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the amended Motion to adduce new evidence, with legal costs against the petitioner; [ 8 ] DISMISSES the third amended Motion for leave, with legal costs against the petitioner. JACQUES CHAMBELRAND, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A.