2014 QCCA 107, 2014 QCCA 107

Mazhero c. CBC/Radio-Canada 2014 QCCA 107 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL Nos: 500-09-022792-121, 500-09-023106-123, 500-09-023182-124, 500-09-023385-131, 500-09-023510-134, 500-09-023916-133, 500-09-023935-133, 500-09-023936-131, 500-09-024007-130 (500-17-071464-120) DATE: JANUARY 22, 2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE PIERRE J. DALPHOND, J.A. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. LORNE GIROUX, J.A. Nos: 500-09-023935-133, 500-09-023936-131, 500-09-024007-130 FRANCIS MAZHERO PETITIONER - Plaintiff v. CBC/RADIO-CANADA MICROSOFT CORPORATION BELL CANADA NEW ZIMBABWE MEDIA LTD.

RESPONDENTS - Defendants Nos: 500-09-022792-121, 500-09-023106-123, 500-09-023182-124, 500-09-023385-131, 500-09-023510-134, 500-09-023916-133, 500-09-023935-133, 500-09-023936-131 FRANCIS MAZHERO RESPONDENT - Plaintiff v. CBC/RADIO-CANADA PETITIONER - Defendant and MICROSOFT CORPORATION BELL CANADA NEW ZIMBABWE MEDIA LTD. IMPLEADED PARTIES - Defendants JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This judgment disposes of: • four applications for leave to appeal brought by Francis Mazhero (Files 500-09-023935-133, 500-09-023936-131 and 500-09-024007-

130); • his sui generis motion to obtain an order allowing appeals from judgments rendered by the judges whose judgments are the subject of his aforesaid leave applications, and for an order directing the Superior Court to grant him the relief sought in his inscription in appeal filed on March 19, 2013; [1] and, • a motion by CBC/Radio-Canada to have Mr. Mazhero declared a vexatious litigant in this Court and in particular with reference to all of the files in which Mr. Mazhero has been a party (500-09-022792-121, 500-09-023106-123, 500-09-023182-124, 500-09-023385-131, 500-09-023510-134, 500-09-023916-133, 500-09-023935-133, 500-09-023936-131). [2] [ 2 ] We begin with a brief

summary of the circumstances giving rise to these motions, all of which appear from judgments of this Court, the Superior Court and the Federal Court. [ 3 ] On March 30, 2011, the Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer of the Federal Court rendered a judgment that included an order that Mr.

Mazhero "is barred from bringing any further proceedings in this Court except with leave of the Court / […] est interdit […] d'engager d'autres instances devant la Cour, sauf avec son autorisation". [3] The underlying basis of the order was described by Tremblay-Lamer, J. in her reasons as follows: 2 This motion arises in the context of an action instituted by the respondent on July 5, 2010 against the applicants, as well as against Justice Neil Sharkey of the Nunavut Court of Justice, in relation to an Order issued by Justice Sharkey on August 14, 2009, wherein the respondent was declared to be a vexatious litigant.

In the underlying action, the respondent alleges that Justice Sharkey's Order was defamatory in nature and that, as such, Justice Sharkey should be prosecuted under

section 300 of the Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c. C-46. He further alleges in the underlying action that the applicants, both Crown prosecutors, were negligent in failing to prosecute Justice Sharkey in connection with the allegedly defamatory Order.

The respondent seeks damages in excess of $2.5 million from the applicants, and in excess of $3 million from Justice Sharkey. 2 La présente requête a été introduite dans le cadre d'une action que l'intimé a intentée le 5 juillet 2010 contre les requérants, et contre le juge Neil Sharkey de la Cour de justice du Nunavut, par suite d'une ordonnance du 14 août 2009 dans laquelle le juge Sharkey a déclaré que l'intimé agissait comme plaideur quérulent.

L'intimé soutient dans l'action sous-jacente que l'ordonnance du juge Sharkey était de nature diffamatoire et qu'à ce titre, celui-ci devrait faire l'objet de poursuites en application de l'

article 300 du Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C-46 . Dans l'action sous-jacente, l'intimé fait aussi valoir la négligence des requérants, tous deux des procureurs de la Couronne, ceux-ci n'ayant pas poursuivi le juge Sharkey pour son ordonnance prétendument diffamatoire. L'intimé réclame des dommages-intérêts de plus de 2 500 000 $ contre les requérants, et de plus de 3 000 000 $ contre le juge Sharkey. [ 4 ] CBC/Radio-Canada and the other respondents reported this judgment. Mr.

Mazhero then instituted defamation proceedings against them in the Superior Court claiming $12,000,000 and also sought a variety of accessory orders. After a certain number of difficulties during the case-management phase of the matter, it finally came on for trial before De Wever, J., who dismissed it with costs. [4] In the course of his reasons, he found that the respondents had accurately reported the judgment of Tremblay-Lamer, J. Mr.

Mazhero's appeal from that judgment, which was inscribed as of right, was dismissed summarily on motion. [5] In the course of its reasons, the Court wrote: [16] The Superior Court dismissed Mr. Mazhero's motion to institute proceedings on the merits. The judge observed that the internet articles summarized precisely and correctly the reasons for judgment rendered by a judge of the Federal Court of Canada.

In paragraphs [57] to [70], the judge explained his view, substantiated by the applicable law, that news organizations are entitled to report on judgments rendered by the courts which are open to public scrutiny and public criticism. The judge found that none of the respondents had committed a civil fault. He decided further that this same conclusion applied to New Zimbabwe Media Ltd. notwithstanding the fact that it did not file an appearance in the Superior Court. [17] In his inscription in appeal, Mr. Mazhero argues that his appeal should be allowed on both procedural and substantive grounds.

At the hearing before us, he presented copies of his factum on appeal which, he said, he had served on the parties and which he planned to file in the Court's registry. His argument before us drew extensively from his factum. As a result, the official filing of his factum in the Court record was noted at the hearing. [18] In his factum, Mr.

Mazhero restates the questions in issue as follows: " The sole question in issue on this appeal is whether Justice De Wever of the Superior Court of Montreal perpetrated a fraud on the process of civil justice, and perverted or abused his office and the process of civil justice ". [19] As a matter of procedure, Mr. Mazhero argued that irregular appearances in the record on appeal by CBC Radio-Canada, Microsoft Corporation and Bell Canada precluded them from filing motions to dismiss. For reasons given in paragraph [9] above, this argument is dismissed. […] [24] As to the substantive arguments raised by Mr.

Mazhero in his inscription in appeal and his factum, no valid grounds are alleged that would allow the trial judgment to be set aside. [25] The finding by the trial judge that the respondents committed no civil fault is a finding of fact. Absent the demonstration of a

palpable and overriding error, this finding is deserving of deference on appeal. [26] Mr. Mazhero raised no such error, nor does he point to an error of law susceptible of having the judgment set aside. [27] Mr. Mazhero's factum and inscription contain harshly-worded criticism of the trial judge and certain other judges who, says the appellant, have conspired with the lawyers on the other side to perpetrate "a fraud on the process of civil justice" at the expense of the appellant's constitutional rights. In the Court's view, however, the appellant raises no plausible basis in fact upon which these accusations might properly stand. [28] His various complaints include (

i) that there was no trial in this matter; (ii) that the trial judge used self-serving evidence; (iii) that the trial judge is a "crook"; (iv) that the judge participated in a scheme devised by another judge in the Superior Court to defeat his claim; and (

v) that the judge acted as he did in order to avail himself of judicial immunity . [29] None of these arguments has any discernable basis in fact. Indeed, nothing in the inscription or in the factum can be construed as an allegation, in fact or in law, of grounds for setting aside the judgment of February 22, 2013. [30] Instead, Mr. Mazhero has chosen to resort to inflammatory language that not only fails to make out his case but lends credit to the argument that his appeal is an improper one. [6] [31] In sum, the appeal against Bell Canada, CBC Radio-Canada, Microsoft Corporation and New Zimbabwe Ltd. has no reasonable chance of success and should be dismissed pursuant to

article 501, paragraph 1 (4.1) C.C.P. [Emphasis added.] [ 5 ] Schrager, J. was then seized of a variety of motions brought by Mr. Mazhero, CBC/Radio-Canada and Bell Canada, which he summarized in his judgment [7] as follows: [2] The conclusions sought by Mr. Mazhero are as follows: [3] Motion for Sanctions Mr. Mazhero seeks the striking out of the bill of costs taxed by the attorney for CBC Radio-Canada and Microsoft Corporation. In its original form of August 22, 2013 (plumitif number 54), this motion sought "the relief set out in paragraph 5(

d) of [Mr. Mazhero's] Inscription in Appeal", that is a condemnation for $17,900,000.00 in moral and punitive damages. However, following one of his Court appearances, the motion was amended to seek the conclusions referred to above regarding the bills of costs. [4] Motion for Production This motion, as the title would indicate, seeks an order for production of various documents which Mr. Mazhero wanted for the hearing on the previous motion. [5] Motion for Declaration This motion concludes for the identical afore-mentioned condemnation for moral and punitive damages.

This conclusion appears strikingly similar if not identical to that sought in the action on the merits herein, except that the amount has been increased from $12,000,000.00 to $17,900,000.00, as it was in Mr. Mazhero's inscription in appeal from the judgment on the merits. [6] Defendants have filed the following motions: 6.1. CBC/Société Radio-Canada's Amended Motion (...) to Dismiss and Declare Abusive Plaintiff's Motion to Impose Sanctions for Improper Use of Procedure and to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant, number 60 on the plumitif, ("CBC's Motion"). The title clearly indicates the conclusions sought.

At hearing, counsel amended to include conclusions so as to seek dismissal of all Mr. Mazhero's above-mentioned motions. CBC Radio-Canada seeks to declare Mr. Mazhero a vexatious litigant. The characterization of Mr. Mazhero as a vexatious litigant, if granted, would require that any further proceedings that Mr. Mazhero wishes to institute, be subject to the prior approval of the Chief Justice of this Court. 6.2.

Defendant Bell Canada's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Motion for Declaration that Justice Marc De Wever of the Québec Superior Court Perpetrated a Fraud on the Process of Civil Justice and Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Impose Sanctions for Improper Use of Procedure, number 63 on the plumitif ("Bell Canada's Motion"). Co-Defendant Bell Canada also seeks dismissal of Mr. Mazhero's motions as unfounded in law, but since Bell Canada's counsel did not tax a bill of costs, it has no direct interest in Mr. Mazhero's Motion for Sanctions. [Emphasis added.] [ 6 ] On October 2, 2013 Schrager, J. dismissed all of Mr.

Mazhero's motions. He further granted Bell Canada's motion (6.2 above) and both of CBC/Radio-Canada's motions (6.1 above), as well as issuing the following order declaring Mr. Mazhero to be a quarrelsome litigant, the whole with provisional execution notwithstanding appeal: [61] DECLARES Plaintiff Francis Mazhero a quarrelsome litigant within the meaning of

Article 54.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and

Article 84 of the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court and PROHIBITS Francis Mazhero from continuing any existing legal proceeding or commencing any new legal proceeding of any kind or nature whatsoever in any court in the Province of Québec including any judicial or quasi judicial body over which the Superior Court exercises superintending or reforming power unless any such legal proceeding has received the prior authorization of the Chief Justice or a judge designated by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court

following a written application from Francis Mazhero. [ 7 ] As the result of a written request from counsel for CBC/Radio-Canada following a hearing before Hilton, J.A. sitting as a judge in chambers of this Court, [8] Schrager, J. issued a corrected judgment on October 11 specifying that the preceding declaration on the fifth line above applied only to "any court of first instance in the Province of Quebec…", thereby excluding the Court of Appeal from its ambit. [9] Although Mr.

Mazhero challenges the propriety of the initial judgment having been so corrected (despite the fact that it reduced the effect of the order on him), Schrager, J. was justified in doing so since the record shows he had adjudicated beyond the conclusions CBC/Radio-Canada sought in its application to have Mr. Mazhero declared a quarrelsome litigant. [10] Moreover, since leave to appeal the initial judgment rendered on October 2 had not then been granted, the prohibition in the second paragraph of

article 475 C.C.P . that prevents correction when there has been an appeal was inapplicable. Mr. Mazhero's motions for leave to appeal [ 8 ] Mr. Mazhero seeks leave to appeal the following judgments:

(1) The judgment rendered by Schrager, J. as referred to in paragraph [6] above;

(2) The corrected judgment rendered by Schrager, J. as referred to in paragraph [7] above;

(3) A purported judgment of Rolland, C.J. "by and through Patrick Gosselin [11] and Valerie Scott [12] " refusing Mr. Mazhero permission to apply to revoke the judgment of Schrager, J. rendered on October 2, 2013;

(4) A judgment of Wery, J., rendered on October 30, 2013 that dismissed a variety of Mr. Mazhero's requests that are apparently contained in a letter he wrote to, amongst others, Chief Justice McLachlin and Chief Justice Duval Hesler, as well as to the Hon. Peter MacKay, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Hon. Bertrand St-Arnaud, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Quebec. Disposition of the leave applications [ 9 ] At the outset, it should be noted that Mr. Mazhero argues that only a judge alone can hear and dispose of his leave applications.

In fact, Duval Hesler, C.J. deferred all of them to this panel when CBC/Radio-Canada indicated its intention to seek an order to have him declared a vexatious litigant. [ 10 ] The fifth paragraph of

article 509 C.C.P. provides that a judge can refer any motion for leave to a panel of the Court "if the interests of justice so require / s'il estime que les interest de la justice le requiert", [13] and that given the limited jurisdiction of a judge in chambers, a panel of the Court can exercise any of the powers of a judge acting alone. The decision of the Chief Justice to refer Mr. Mazhero's motion to a panel is consistent with the orderly conduct of the business of the Court by ensuring that multiple proceedings involving the same parties are decided by the same judges.

Since a motion to declare someone a vexatious litigant can only be decided by a panel of the Court, [14] it was perfectly appropriate to refer the motions for leave to appeal to the panel that would be called upon to adjudicate the vexatious litigant proceedings. [ 11 ] That being said, on their merits, none of Mr. Mazhero's applications warrant leave being granted. [ 12 ] Insofar as the motions relating to the two judgments of Schrager, J. are concerned, it is useful to return to the genesis of Mr.

Mazhero's underlying claim against the respondents – the accurate reporting of the judgment of Tremblay-Lamer, J. barring him from initiating any further claims in the Federal Court without prior authorization. [15] Here is a lengthy but telling recitation of the prior proceedings that led to Mr.

Mazhero being so barred, the reporting of which by the respondents led to the suit against them for defamation: 14 In addition to the twelve proceedings initiated by the respondent in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, the respondent also has an extensive history before the Yukon Courts, as well as the Nunavut Courts. In Mazhero v.

Yukon (Ombudsman & Privacy Commissioner) , 2001 YKSC 520 at paras 39-41 [Yukon], Justice Marceau of the Yukon Supreme Court had the following to say about the respondent's litigation history to that point (May 9, 2001): 14 En plus d'avoir engagé douze instances devant la Cour fédérale et la Cour d'appel fédérale, l'intimé exerce également de longue date des recours devant les tribunaux du Yukon et du Nunavut. Dans la décision Mazhero c.

Yukon (Ombudsman & Privacy Commissioner ), 2001 YKSC 520 (Yukon) , le juge Marceau de la Cour suprême du Yukon a formulé les commentaires suivants (paragraphes 39 à 41) sur les antécédents de l'intimé comme plaideur à cette date (le 9 mai 2001) :

39 A search of the public record indicates that Mr. Mazhero has brought a multiplicity of proceedings, not only in this court, but also in the Yukon Court of Appeal and in the Federal Court of Canada. The matters revealed are as follows: 1. A total of 6 proceedings to the Supreme Court of Yukon 2. A total of 2 appeals from decisions of this court 3. A total of two proceedings before the Federal Court - Trial Division and one proceeding before the Federal Court - Appeal Division […] 39 Les documents publics font voir que M.

Mazhero a intenté non seulement devant la Cour, mais aussi devant la Cour d'appel du Yukon et la Cour fédérale du Canada, de nombreuses poursuites, dont voici le détail : 1. Six instances devant la Cour suprême du Yukon [...] 2. Deux appels à l'encontre de décisions de la Cour [...] 3. Deux instances devant la Cour fédérale -

Section de première instance et un appel devant la Cour fédérale -

Section d'appel [...] 40 It is clear from reviewing the numerous matters instigated by Mr. Mazhero that he seeks to attack both the procedure of various public bodies designed to protect his rights, as well as their members, employees and even counsel. It is also clear that all of the proceedings initiated in this court that have been adjudicated upon to this date have been found to be completely without merit. 40 Il ressort clairement de l'examen de ses nombreuses actions en justice que M.

Mazhero met en cause la procédure de divers organismes publics destinés à protéger ses droits, ainsi que les membres, les employés et même les avocats de ces organismes. Il est aussi manifeste qu'il n'y avait absolument aucun fondement à toutes les affaires tranchées à ce jour par la Cour. 41 Due to the overly litigious nature of Mr. Mazhero, which, as noted above, has brought a total of 5 matters before this court, some with additional motions brought within the original proceeding, which have to date been completely without merit, it occurs to me this might be an appropriate situation in which to enjoin Mr.

Mazhero from issuing further process in this court without first obtaining leave. 41 M. Mazhero est chicaneur à l'excès; on l'a dit, il a intenté devant la Cour cinq actions, parfois assorties de requêtes, toujours sans le moindre fondement. Il me semble donc opportun d'interdire à M. Mazhero d'engager d'autres instances devant la Cour sans y avoir été autorisé au préalable. 15 In Mazhero v.

Yukon (Human Rights Commission) , 2002 YKCA 5 , the Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed a number of the respondent's appeals on the basis that the respondent had not materially advanced the appeals towards a final hearing or determination. At paragraphs 16-19, it emphasized the speculative and repetitive nature of the proceedings instituted by the respondent: 15 Dans l'arrêt Mazhero c.

Yukon (Human Rights Commission) , 2002 YKCA 5 , la Cour d'appel du Yukon avait rejeté un certain nombre d'appels de l'intimé parce qu'il n'en avait pas fait suffisamment progresser le cours jusqu'au stade de l'audience ou de la décision finale. La Cour d'appel a mis l'accent, aux paragraphes 16 à 19, sur le caractère hypothétique et répétitif des procédures engagées par l'intimé : 16 Many of the steps he has taken have been labelled in the past as unmeritorious, without legal foundation, irrelevant and repetitive.

One judge below went so far as to consider enjoining the appellant from issuing further process in the Supreme Court without first obtaining leave. 16 [...] Dans le passé, on a dit être injustifiées, non fondées en droit, sans pertinence et répétitives nombre des démarches qu'il avait entreprises. Un juge d'un tribunal inférieur a même envisagé d'interdire à l'appelant d'engager d'autres instances devant la Cour suprême sans y avoir d'abord été autorisé.

17 I make no ruling on these observations by other judges. They are not pertinent to the applications before me, but they do illustrate that the appellant engages in multiple litigation, much of which is speculative. In such circumstances one would expect an appellant, confronted with motions to dismiss, to aggressively defend the merits of the appeal, or at least provide an explanation for the delays. Mr. Mazhero's failure to appear at all may be an indication that he too considers these appeals superfluous.

Or, at a minimum, it indicates that the appellant has no settled intention to proceed with these appeals. ... 17 Je ne statue aucunement sur ces commentaires d'autres juges. Ils sont sans rapport avec les demandes dont je suis saisi, mais ils mettent en évidence le fait que l'appelant engage de nombreux recours, qui reposent le plus souvent sur des hypothèses. On s'attendrait en de telles circonstances à ce qu'un appelant, à qui sont opposées des demandes de rejet, fasse valoir avec énergie le bien-fondé de son appel, ou à tout le moins cherche à expliquer ses retards. Le défaut de M.

Mazhero de comparaître même une seule fois peut donner à croire que lui aussi juge ces appels superflus, ou du moins qu'il n'est pas déterminé à leur donner suite. [...] 19 The second point is that, while the courts must maintain accessibility for all members of the public, the courts also have a responsibility to protect parties from seemingly vexatious proceedings. The respondent Commission is a public body with a mandate to serve the public interest. The appellant has engaged in repetitive litigation against it alleging things that to date have been held to be unfounded.

Undoubtedly such litigation has the capacity of interfering with the Commission's work by the expenditure of time and resources. This then has the potential of detrimentally affecting other members of the public who are relying on the Commission to protect their rights. The Commission, just like any other litigant, is entitled to know that proceedings will come to an end and when. 19 Le deuxième point à retenir c'est que, si les tribunaux doivent s'assurer d'être accessibles à tous, ils doivent aussi empêcher que quiconque fasse l'objet de poursuites qui semblent vexatoires.

La Commission intimée est un organisme public voué à servir les intérêts de la population. L'appelant a intenté de multiples recours contre elle, pour des motifs qui à ce jour ont toujours été jugés être sans fondement. Il ne fait aucun doute que de tels recours peuvent entraver le travail de la Commission, qui doit y consacrer du temps et des ressources. Cela à son tour risque de nuire à d'autres citoyens qui comptent sur la Commission pour protéger leurs droits. La Commission, comme toute autre partie, a le droit de savoir qu'il y aura un terme à une instance, et quand ce terme va survenir. 16 In Mazhero v.

Federation of Nunavut Teachers , 2003 NUCJ 2 , 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 743 [Federation of Nunavut Teachers], the Nunavut Court of Justice addressed an application by the respondent arising out of numerous grievances the respondent had filed against his employer, the Government of Nunavut, in relation to his former job as a teacher in Chesterfield Inlet. These grievances related to: relocation and storage assistance, allegations of defamation, harassment, supposed violation of his Charter rights, invasion of privacy, wrongful dismissal, etc.

Justice Browne expressed concern with respect to the volume of material filed by the respondent as well as his allegations against court staff. At paragraph 8, he indicated: 16 Dans la décision Mazhero c. Federation of Nunavut Teachers , 2003 NUCJ 2 , 179 ACWS (3d) 743 (Federation of Nunavut Teachers) , la Cour de justice du Nunavut a examiné une demande de l'intimé faisant suite à de nombreux griefs portés par lui contre son employeur, le gouvernement du Nunavut, en lien avec son ancien emploi d'enseignant à Chesterfield Inlet.

Ces griefs mettaient en cause des questions d'aide à la réinstallation et à l'entreposage et des allégations, notamment, de diffamation, de harcèlement, de violation de droits garantis par la Charte, d'atteinte à la vie privée et de congédiement injustifié. La juge Browne a fait part de ses préoccupations quant au volume élevé de documents déposés par l'intimé, et aux allégations portées par lui contre le personnel de la Cour de justice du Nunavut. Elle a déclaré ce qui suit aux paragraphes 8 et 10 de la décision : 8 Mr.

Mazhero files significantly more material than any other individual (Plaintiff or Respondent) , so much so that the court registry staff and I, as case management judge, are unable to keep up with the filing and all of our other tasks... At paragraph 10: 10 I am concerned about derogatory allegations that Mr. Mazhero is making against court staff. Those remarks are inappropriate and will not be tolerated. 8 M. Mazhero dépose beau-coup plus de documents que quiconque (que ce soit en poursuite ou en défense) .

C'en est au point où le personnel du greffe et moi-même, en tant que juge chargée de la gestion de l'instance, ne pouvons suivre le rythme quant au dépôt et à nos autres tâches [...] 10 Les allégations désobli-geantes de M. Mazhero de nature à discréditer le personnel de la Cour me préoccupent.

De tels propos sont inopportuns et ne seront pas tolérés. 17 Justice Browne also noted the unmeritorious nature of the respondent's applications, as well as his preoccupation with procedure, at paragraph 28: 17 La juge Browne a également relevé l'absence de fondement des demandes de l'intimé, et son obsession pour la procédure (au paragraphe 28) :

28 I have case managed this file since August. Mr. Mazhero is consumed with procedure and the grievance sits without progress. Most, if not all, of Mr. Mazhero's applications are destined for failure — they do not advance the grievance process — they have little merit or chance of success. The numerous filings and actions of Mr. Mazhero have put the court office under some pressure. Of more concern is the constant effort to undermine court staff, counsel, judges and others involved directly or peripherally with the grievance or court applications... 28 Je suis chargée de la gestion de ce dossier depuis août. M.

Mazhero est obnubilé par les questions de procédure et le grief reste en plan. La plupart des demandes de M. Mazhero, sinon toutes, sont vouées à l'échec - elles ne font aucunement progresser le processus de grief -, et elles n'ont guère de fondement ou de chances de succès. En procédant à de nombreux dépôts et en exerçant de nombreux recours, M. Mazhero a soumis à pression le greffe de la Cour.

Plus inquiétant encore, il y a les efforts constants qu'il a déployés pour miner l'autorité du personnel de la Cour, des avocats, des juges et des autres personnes qui s'occupent directement ou indirectement du processus de grief ou des demandes soumises à la Cour [...] 18 In an Order issued by Justice Sharkey of the Nunavut Court of Justice on August 14, 2009, the respondent was declared to be a vexatious litigant for the purposes of the Nunavut Court of Justice and Nunavut Court of Appeal. 18 Par ordonnance datée du 14 août 2009, le juge Sharkey de la Cour de justice du Nunavut a déclaré l'intimé être, en ce qui concernait cette cour et la Cour d'appel du Nunavut, un plaideur quérulent. 19 In Mazhero v.

Government of Nunavut , 2010 NUCJ 11 [Nunavut], Justice Kilpatrick of the Nunavut Court of Justice highlighted the respondent's delay in prosecuting an application filed two years earlier: 19 Dans la décision Mazhero c. Government of Nunavut , 2010 NUCJ 11 (Nunavut) , le juge Kilpatrick de la Cour de justice du Nunavut a fait ressortir le fait que l'intimé avait tardé à faire progresser l'instance dans le cadre d'une demande déposée deux ans plus tôt : 6 This Court understands that the applicant is anxious to see his matter proceed to a hearing.

However, this applicant's insistence that he be given a hearing date before July 30th to suit his convenience is neither reasonable nor practical due to the Court's heavy scheduling commitments. This is so particularly in view of the applicant's own decision to delay prosecution of the original application for two years in favor of procedural litigation in the Court of Appeal. If there is delay in the

section 28 application being heard by this Court, the applicant would appear to be largely the author of his own misfortune. 6 La Cour peut comprendre le désir du demandeur de voir instruite la présente affaire. Toutefois, l'insistance du demandeur pour que soit fixée avant le 30 juillet la date de l'audience, comme cela lui convient, est déraisonnable et il serait difficile en pratique pour la Cour d'accéder à sa demande, en raison de son calendrier déjà très chargé.

Cela est d'autant plus vrai que le demandeur lui-même a tardé à faire progresser l'instance, préférant saisir la Cour d'appel de questions de procédure, alors que la demande initiale a été déposée il y a deux ans. S'il y a retard dans l'instruction par la Cour de la demande fondée sur l'article 28, la faute en incombe pour large part au demandeur. 20 As already mentioned, the respondent has initiated 12 proceedings in this Court and in the Federal Court of Appeal over the last ten years.

Of those 12 proceedings, 8 have been dismissed, 1 file has been ordered closed, and the remaining 3 have yet to be ultimately decided. 20 Au cours des dix dernières années, on l'a dit, l'intimé a engagé douze instances devant la Cour et devant la Cour d'appel fédérale. Parmi ces douze recours, huit ont été rejetés et trois n'ont pas encore fait l'objet d'une décision finale; dans le dernier cas, on a ordonné la fermeture du dossier. 21 Between March and June of 2001, the respondent initiated 4 proceedings.

All were related to the judicial review of grievances that the respondent had filed with various boards and tribunals - some of which were grievances against his former employer, the Yukon Territorial Government. 21 Entre mars et juin 2001, l'intimé a engagé quatre instances. C'était dans tous les cas des demandes de contrôle judiciaire se rapportant à des griefs présentés par lui devant des commissions et des tribunaux administratifs; il s'agissait dans certains cas de griefs contre son ancien employeur, le gouvernement du territoire du Yukon.

22 On March 19, 2001, the respondent brought an application for judicial review in the Federal Court of Appeal (A-185-01) of a decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB). The respondent sought to have one of his complaints to the CIRB referred for an expedited hearing. During the lifetime of this file, the respondent filed approximately 15 interlocutory motions, only one of which was partially successful.

In fact, the volume of materials being filed with the Registry was so high that, on April 2, 2004, Justice Karen Sharlow directed that a temporary hold be placed on any further submissions: 22 Le 19 mars 2001, l'intimé a soumis à la Cour d'appel fédérale une demande de contrôle judiciaire (A-185-01) visant une décision du Conseil canadien des relations industrielles (CCRI). L'intimé demandait que soit ordonnée l'instruction accélérée d'une de ses plaintes adressées au CCRI. Or dans ce dossier, l'intimé a présenté environ 15 requêtes interlocutoires, dont une seule a été partiellement couronnée de succès.

Un si grand nombre de documents ont en fait été déposés au greffe que, le 2 avril 2004, la juge Karen Sharlow a dû ordonner de manière temporaire qu'aucun autre document ne soit soumis dans cette affaire : There are numerous items of correspondence and motions in this file that have yet to be dealt with by the Court. It is not possible to deal with them unless the flow of paper is stopped for a time. Therefore, until further notice, no further documents are to be submitted in this matter by any party...

De nombreuses pièces de correspondance et de nombreuses requêtes déposées dans ce dossier doivent encore être examinées par la Cour. Il n'est pas possible de les examiner si le flux de papier n'est pas stoppé pour quelque temps. Par conséquent, jusqu'à plus ample informé, aucun autre document ne sera soumis dans cette affaire par une

partie quelconque [...] 23 In this regard, Justice Sharlow later noted, "the propensity of Mr. Mazhero to file numerous motions, and to attempt to supplement his motions continually by letters and amendments, has contributed to the delay of which he now complains" ( Mazhero v. Canada (Industrial Relations Board), 2004 FCA 151 at para 36 , 320 NR 1). The respondent's application was ultimately dismissed on February 17, 2005 when the respondent did not appear for the hearing.

The Court indicated that it was, "unable to find any error in the decision sought to be reviewed that would warrant [its] intervention" ( Mazhero v. Canada (Industrial Relations Board ), 2005 FCA 69 at para 1 ). 23 La juge Sharlow a ensuite fait remarquer à cet égard que "la propension de M. Mazhero à déposer de multiples requêtes et à vouloir compléter ses requêtes par des lettres et des modifications à répétition, a contribué au retard dont il se plaint aujourd'hui" (Mazhero c. Canada (Conseil canadien des relations industrielles), 2004 CAF 151 , 320 NR 1 , paragraphe 36 ).

La demande de l'intimé a finalement été rejetée le 17 février 2005, celui-ci n'ayant pas comparu pour l'audience. La Cour a déclaré qu'elle n'avait "décelé aucune erreur dans la décision faisant l'objet de la demande de contrôle judiciaire qui justifierait l'intervention de la Cour" ( Mazhero c.

Canada (Conseil canadien des relations industrielles ), 2005 CAF 69 , paragraphe 1 ). 24 On April 4, 2001, the respondent brought an application in the Federal Court (T-598-01) seeking the judicial review of a decision of the Yukon Teachers' Staff Relations Board which had refused to process a complaint filed by the respondent earlier that year. This application was dismissed in August 2001 by Justice Francis Muldoon [2001] F.C.J.

No. 1270 ] who found that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the application. 24 Le 4 avril 2001, l'intimé a présenté à la Cour fédérale une demande de contrôle judiciaire (T- 598-01) visant la décision de la Commission des relations de travail du personnel enseignant du Yukon de refuser de traiter une plainte déposée par lui plus tôt la même année.

En août 2001, le juge Francis Muldoon a rejeté la demande de contrôle judiciaire, après avoir conclu que la Cour fédérale n'avait pas compétence pour l'instruire et la trancher. 25 On April 11, 2001, the respondent brought another application in the Federal Court of Appeal (A-245-01) seeking judicial review of a decision made by the Yukon Public Service Staff Relations Board refusing to consolidate complaints made by the respondent earlier that year.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this application on July 4, 2001 after indicating that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. 25 Le 11 avril 2001, l'intimé a soumis à la Cour d'appel fédérale une nouvelle demande de contrôle judiciaire (A-245-01), visant cette fois la décision de la Commission des relations de travail dans la fonction publique du Yukon de refuser la jonction de plaintes qu'il avait formulées plus tôt cette année-là.

Le 4 juillet 2001, la Cour d'appel fédérale a rejeté cette demande après avoir déclaré qu'elle n'avait pas compétence pour instruire l'affaire. 26 On June 29, 2001, the respondent appealed two orders that had been rendered in T-598-01, above, to the Court of Appeal (A-401-01). These appeals were ultimately dismissed because the respondent failed to respond to a Notice of Status Review within the time specified to do so. 26 Le 29 juin 2001, l'intimé a interjeté appel auprès de la Cour d'appel fédérale (A-401-01) de deux ordonnances rendues dans le cadre de la demande de contrôle judiciaire T-598-01 susmentionnée.

Ces appels ont finalement été rejetés parce que l'intimé n'avait pas donné suite dans le délai fixé à un avis d'examen de l'état de l'instance. 27 Between March 2004 and May 2005, the respondent initiated another five proceedings in the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. 27 Entre mars 2004 et mai 2005, l'intimé a engagé cinq autres instances devant la Cour fédérale et la Cour d'appel fédérale.

28 On March 12, 2004, the respondent brought an application (T-313-04) seeking judicial review in this Court of two decisions made by the Office of the Information Commissioner regarding records that the respondent had requested. Over the course of this application, the respondent wrote to the Court approximately 22 times and brought a total of 12 interlocutory applications, all of which were dismissed.

On January 5, 2006, this application was dismissed by Prothonotary Roger Lafrenière as being "so improper" as to be "bereft of any possibility of success". 28 Le 12 mars 2004, l'intimé a présenté à la Cour une demande de contrôle judiciaire (T-313- 04) visant deux décisions rendues par le Commissariat à l'information du Canada au sujet de dossiers dont il avait sollicité la communication. Dans le cadre de cette demande, l'intimé a écrit 22 fois environ à la Cour et il a soumis 12 demandes interlocutoires, qui toutes ont été rejetées.

Le 5 janvier 2006, le protonotaire Roger Lafrenière a rejeté la demande de contrôle au motif qu'elle était [TRADUCTION] "irrégulière au point de n'avoir aucune chance d'être accueillie". 29 On April 20, 2004, the respondent initiated an action in this Court (T-792-04) alleging that a number of police officers had improperly arrested and detained him in Iqaluit in December of 2003. This action has yet to be finally determined. Thus far, the respondent has written to the Court approximately 89 times and has brought approximately 29 interlocutory applications.

All 29 interlocutory applications were dismissed or held in abeyance except for 2 which were only partially successful. 29 Le 20 avril 2004, l'intimé a intenté une action devant la Cour (T-792-04) où il alléguait qu'en décembre 2003, à Iqaluit, des policiers l'avaient irrégulièrement arrêté et détenu. Une décision finale n'a pas encore été rendue dans cette affaire. À ce jour, l'intimé a écrit environ 89 fois à la Cour et il a présenté environ 29 demandes interlocutoires.

Toutes ces demandes interlocutoires ont été rejetées ou laissées en suspens, à l'exception de deux, qui n'ont été que partiellement couronnées de succès. 30 On November 25, 2004, the respondent brought an action in this Court (T-2106-04) against Justice Edward Richard of the Nunavut Court of Appeal, Justice Beverly Browne of the Nunavut Court of Justice, as well as a registry officer at the Supreme Court of Canada. The respondent alleged that the defendants had failed to adequately expedite 3 actions, 3 petitions and 3 appeals that he had initiated.

On November 25, 2004, Justice Sean Harrington of this Court dismissed the respondent's action for being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious. In Mazhero v. Nunavut (Court of Justice, Judge) , 2004 FC 1659 at para 3 , 135 A.C.W.S. (3d) 415, Justice Harrington indicated: 30 Le 25 novembre 2004, l'intimé a intenté devant la Cour une action (T-2106-04) contre le juge Edward Richard de la Cour d'appel du Nunavut, la juge Beverly Browne de la Cour de justice du Nunavut ainsi qu'un agent du greffe de la Cour suprême du Canada.

L'intimé soutenait que les défendeurs ne s'étaient pas occupés avec la célérité voulue de trois actions et trois requêtes qu'il avait introduites et de trois appels qu'il avait interjetés. Le 25 novembre 2004, le juge Sean Harrington de la Cour a rejeté l'action de l'intimé, qu'il a qualifiée de scandaleuse, frivole et vexatoire au paragraphe 3 de la décision Mazhero c. Nunavut (Juge de la Cour de Justice) , 2004 CF 1659 , 135 ACWS (3d) 415 : 3 I direct the statement of claim be accepted for filing so that it can be assigned a proper docket number. However, as Mr.

Mazhero has not advanced any basis whatsoever for invoking this Court's jurisdiction, on my own motion I strike the statement of claim in its entirety pursuant to Rule 221, without leave to amend, and order that the action be dismissed. The statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action before this Court, is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and is otherwise an abuse of process of this Court. 3 J'ordonne que la déclaration soit acceptée en vue de son dépôt pour qu'on lui attribue un numéro de dossier approprié. Toutefois, comme M.

Mazhero n'a fait valoir absolument aucun motif pour invoquer la compétence de la Cour, je décide de radier la déclaration dans sa totalité en vertu de l'article 221 des Règles, sans autorisation de la modifier, et j'ordonne le rejet de l'action. La déclaration ne présente aucune cause d'action valable aux yeux de la Cour, elle est scandaleuse, frivole et vexatoire et elle constitue autrement un abus de procédure à l'égard de la Cour. 31 Justice Harrington's Order, however, did not end the matter for the respondent. He brought more than 10 further motions, all of which were dismissed.

On September 28, 2005, Justice Yves de Montigny ordered an end to further submissions by the respondent with respect to this action, he ordered: 31 L'ordonnance du juge Harrington, toutefois, n'a pas mis fin à l'affaire pour l'intimé. Celui-ci a présenté plus de 10 autres requêtes, qui toutes ont été rejetées. Le 28 septembre 2005, le juge Yves de Montigny a ordonné comme suit que cesse la production de tout autre document par l'intimé dans le cadre de l'action : All further documentation submitted to the Court by the Plaintiff on this file, be returned to him.

The Court will entertain no further motions in this action. This order may be subject to change, pending the decision in the Plaintiff's file in the Court of Appeal. Tout nouveau document soumis à la Cour par le demandeur dans le présent dossier lui sera rendu. La Cour ne recevra plus aucune autre requête dans le cadre de l'action. La présente ordonnance pourra être modifiée, suivant la décision de la Cour d'appel dans la présente affaire.

32 Despite Justice de Montigny's Order, the respondent brought a further motion on January 29, 2010 seeking to set aside Justice Harrington's 2004 Order. This motion was dismissed by Justice Harrington on March 11, 2010. Justice Harrington indicated that, "The defendants, the Honourable J. Edward Richard and the Honourable Beverly Browne have been vexatiously pursued in this Court..." ( Mazhero v. Nunavut (Court of Appeal, Judge ), 2010 FC 281 at para 14 ). Justice Harrington reiterated that this Court did not have jurisdiction over the cause of action alleged in the statement of claim. 32

Malgré l'ordonnance du juge de Montigny, l'intimé a introduit une nouvelle requête le 29 janvier 2010, pour solliciter l'annulation de l'ordonnance de 2004 du juge Harrington. Rejetant cette requête le 11 mars 2010, le juge Harrington a déclaré ce qui suit : "Les juges défendeurs J. Edward Richard et Beverly Browne ont été poursuivis devant la Cour de manière vexatoire [...]" ( Mazhero c. Nunavut (Juge de la Cour d'appel ), 2010 CF 281 , paragraphe 14 ).

Le juge Harrington a aussi de nouveau déclaré que la Cour n'avait pas compétence à l'égard de la cause d'action avancée dans la déclaration. 33 The respondent also appealed Justice Harrington's 2004 Order to the Federal Court of Appeal (A-703-04) on December 23, 2004. The respondent alleged that Justice Harrington's Order constituted a fraud and was an abuse of process. This appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal for delay.

The court records show that the respondent wrote to the Court approximately 26 times and brought approximately 11 interlocutory applications, all of which were dismissed, over the lifetime of this file. 33 Le 23 décembre 2004, l'intimé a également interjeté appel de l'ordonnance de 2004 du juge Harrington devant la Cour d'appel fédérale (A- 703-04). Il soutenait que cette ordonnance constituait une fraude et un abus de procédure . L'appel a finalement été rejeté pour retard par la Cour d'appel fédérale.

Les dossiers du tribunal révèlent que l'intimé a écrit environ 26 fois à la Cour et a présenté environ 11 requêtes interlocutoires, qui toutes ont été rejetées, dans le cadre de cette instance. 34 On May 17, 2005, the respondent initiated an application for judicial review in this Court (T-865-05) of a decision by the Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council. The respondent had filed complaints against a number of judges with the Executive Director and sought an order from this Court requiring the Executive Director to send those complaints to the Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council.

The respondent named not only the Canadian Judicial Council as respondents in the matter, but also: Prothonotary Mireille Tabib, Prothonotary Roza Aronovitch, Justice Edward Richard, Justice Beverly Browne, Justice Sean Harrington, Justice Yvon Pinard, Justice Konrad von Finckenstein, Justice Robert Decary and Justice Denis Pelletier. On this file, the respondent wrote to the Court 19 times, and brought six interlocutory applications, all of which were dismissed.

The overall application was dismissed on January 24, 2006 for delay. 34 Le 17 mai 2005, l'intimé a soumis à la Cour une demande de contrôle judiciaire (T-865-05) visant une décision du directeur exécutif du Conseil canadien de la magistrature. L'intimé avait porté plainte contre un certain nombre de juges devant le directeur exécutif, et il demandait à la Cour d'ordonner à celui-ci de soumettre ces plaintes à la présidente du Conseil canadien de la magistrature. Outre le Conseil, l'intimé avait désigné à

titre de défendeurs les protonotaires Mireille Tabib et Roza Aronovitch ainsi que les juges Edward Richard, Beverly Browne, Sean Harrington, Yvon Pinard, Konrad von Finckenstein, Robert Décary et Denis Pelletier. Dans ce dossier, l'intimé a écrit 19 fois à la Cour et il a présenté 6 demandes interlocutoires, qui toutes ont été rejetées. La demande de contrôle judiciaire même a été rejetée, pour retard, le 24 janvier 2006. 35 On July 5, 2010, the respondent initiated the action underlying the current motion (T- 1067-10).

The respondent's conduct to date on this file has been consistent with his conduct in the past. He has filed, or attempted to file, a number of interlocutory applications and documents. He has sent many letters to the Chief Justice of this Court, as well as a letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. His interaction with the Court Registry has been so extensive that on November 2, 2010, the Registry requested directions from the Court.

On November 3, 2010, Prothonotary Morneau issued an Order restricting the documents that could be filed with the Court as follows: 35 Le 5 juillet 2010, l'intimé a engagé l'action qui sous-tend la présente requête (T-1067-10). Le comportement à ce jour de l'intimé dans le dossier concorde avec son comportement dans le passé. L'intimé a déposé, ou tenté de déposer, un certain nombre de demandes interlocutoires et de documents. Il a envoyé de nombreuses lettres au juge en chef de la Cour et une lettre à la juge en chef de la Cour suprême du Canada.

Il y a eu tant d'échanges entre l'intimé et le greffe de la Cour que, le 2 novembre 2010, le greffe a dû demander des directives à la Cour. Le 3 novembre 2010, le protonotaire Morneau a restreint par ordonnance, comme suit, le nombre de documents pouvant être déposés auprès de la Cour :

In order that this file does not become even further clogged or saturated, based on the principle that this Court has the implied jurisdiction to control its own process and upon a reading of rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules (the Rules), this Court on its own motion hereby orders that unless and until ordered or directed otherwise by this Court or the case management judge to be designated, no document or motion material submitted in the past by the plaintiff for filing, or to be submitted by the plaintiff for filing, shall be filed by the Registry unless they are strictly related to the following motions and do respect the requirements of the Rules: 1. The motion by the plaintiff for

summary judgment discussed in the direction of this Court dated September 17, 2010; 2. The motions by the defendants Andrew Fox and Jacques Roberge identified in paragraph 2 of the order of this Court dated September 17, 2010; 3. A motion in appeal of the instant order.

S'appuyant sur le principe voulant qu'elle ait le pouvoir inhérent de contrôler sa propre procédure, et sur l'article 3 des Règles des Cours fédérales (les Règles), et pour éviter que le bon déroulement du dossier ne soit davantage entravé, la Cour ordonne d'office par la présente, à moins que la Cour ou le juge chargé de la gestion de l'instance qui sera désigné n'en ordonne autrement, que le greffe ne procède au dépôt d'aucun document déjà soumis ou devant être soumis à l'avenir par le demandeur pour dépôt dans le cadre notamment d'une requête, à moins que le document soit exclusivement lié aux requêtes suivantes et satisfasse aux dispositions des Règles : 1. la requête du demandeur pour jugement

sommaire dont la Cour a traité dans ses directives du 17 septembre 2010; 2. les requêtes des défendeurs Andrew Fox et Jacques Roberge mentionnées au paragraphe 2 de l'ordonnance du 17 septembre 2010 de la Cour; 3. une requête en autorisation d'interjeter appel de la présente ordonnance. 36 The respondent continues to submit motion materials and other documents that fall outside the scope of the above Order. Those documents continue to be returned to the respondent. The respondent also continues to write letters to the Chief Justice of this Court.

In one letter, received by the Court on December 30, 2010, the respondent alleged that a Prothonotary of this Court was a "natural born racist". In other letters, the respondent accuses a Prothonotary, and various Registry officers, of being in contempt of Court. 36 L'intimé continue de soumettre des documents, aux fins de requête ou autrement, hors de ce qu'autorise l'ordonnance ci-dessus, documents qu'on continue de lui rendre. L'intimé envoie aussi toujours des lettres au juge en chef de la Cour.

Dans l'une de ces lettres, que la Cour a reçue le 30 décembre 2010, l'intimé a prétendu qu'un protonotaire de la Cour était un [TRADUCTION] "raciste invétéré". Dans d'autres lettres, l'intimé a soutenu qu'un protonotaire et divers agents du greffe étaient coupables d'outrage à la Cour. 37 Subsequent to commencing the underlying action, the respondent also brought an appeal in the Federal Court of Appeal on October 13, 2010 (A-384-10) related to the T-792-04 action, as well as an application for judicial review in this Court on February 23, 2011 (T-307-11).

In relation to this latter application, on February 24, 2011, Prothonotary Morneau issued the following direction: 37 Après avoir engagé l'action qui sous-tend la présente requête, l'intimé a interjeté un appel devant la Cour d'appel fédérale le 13 octobre 2010 (A-384-10) dans le cadre de l'action T-792- 04 et, le 23 février 2011, il a aussi soumis à la Cour une demande de contrôle judiciaire (T-307- 11).

Dans le cadre de la demande de contrôle, le protonotaire Morneau a donné le 4 février 2011 les directives suivantes : In order not to defeat the letter or spirit of the order rendered by the Court on November 3, 2010 in file T-1067-10 or to allow said order (or any other order or direction issued thereafter in file T-1067-10) to be worked around by, inter alia, the opening of new files, and on the basis of the principle or rules relied upon in said order of November 3, 2010, the notice of application filed in the instant file on February 23, 2011 shall be struck out, the recorded entry and tariff receipt be cancelled and this file is hereby directed to be closed and terminated forthwith for all intents and purposes. [Emphasis added.] Pour assurer le respect de l'esprit et de la lettre de l'ordonnance rendue le 3 novembre 2010 par la Cour dans le dossier T-1067-10, et pour veiller à ce que ne soit pas contournée cette ordonnance (ou toute autre ordonnance rendue ou directive donnée par la suite dans le dossier T-1067-10) au moyen, notamment, de l'ouverture de nouveaux dossiers, et conformément au principe et aux règles sur lesquels s'appuyait cette ordonnance, l'avis de demande déposé le 23 février 2011 dans le présent dossier est annulé, de même que l'inscription enregistrée et le reçu de frais, et la fermeture et l'annulation du présent dossier sont à tous égards sur-le-champ ordonnées. [soulignage ajouté.] [ 13 ] Mr.

Mazhero's motions seeking leave to appeal the judgments of Schrager, J. are replete with the same kind of invective to which reference was made in the judgment of Tremblay-Lamer, J. and that of this Court dismissing his appeal from the judgment of De Wever, J. [16]

[ 14 ] He refers to counsel's dishonesty, to their having lied, and alleges he informed Schrager, J. that "the biggest fraud in this case" was the one by which De Wever, J. allowed counsel to present both and an oral and written defence, with the result that the latter's judgment was a nullity. Mr.

Mazhero's most egregious allegation is that the "sole purpose of the (judgments of Schrager, J.) was to cover up probably the biggest fraud that has been perpetrated on the court and the process of civil justice by counsel for Bell, CBC and Microsoft (Richer and Landy) and Justice De Wever, respectively". [ 15 ] The applications for leave are utterly without merit, and even if there was a scintilla of a chance that they had any merit, which there is not, they would nevertheless be dismissed.

This Court has not tolerated and will not tolerate abusive or scandalous language in proceedings before it, especially when a litigant such as Mr. Mazhero solicits the exercise of its discretion in his favour. [17] [ 16 ] In any event, this Court will only rarely intervene to reverse a finding of a trial court that a litigant has acted in a quarrelsome or vexatious manner before it. [18] [ 17 ] As far as the motion seeking leave to appeal the judgment of Rolland, C.J. "by and through Patrick Gosselin and Valerie Scott", the record in this Court contains no judgment, let alone one that could be appealed.

Rather, it would appear that the Special Clerk simply declined to hear Mr. Mazhero's motion to revoke. The judgment of Schrager, J. requires Mr. Mazhero to apply to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court for leave to initiate such a proceeding, not simply to show up before the Special Clerk on a date that he pleases. [ 18 ] Finally, with respect to the judgment of Wery, J. Mr. Mazhero's motion does not produce as an exhibit the letter on which the judgment is said to be based. Even if it had been, however, the judgment does not consider any issue of law that would warrant a review by this Court.

Disposition of Mr. Mazhero's sui generis motion [ 19 ] The nec plus ultra of Mr. Mazhero's motions is this one. In it he revisits the bulk of his grievances over a period of months arising out of his interaction with judges of this Court and its personnel, as well as judges in the Superior Court.

Amongst the allegations in support of the relief he claims we find the following: • perpetration of serious fraud by Duval Hesler, C.J. on the process of civil justice, having perverted or abused her office and the process of civil justice, and creating incalculable harm to the principle of separation of powers, judicial independence and the administration of justice in Canada and Quebec in particular; • falsification of computerized dockets of this Court by the Chief Justice relating to Mr.

Mazhero's motions; • perpetration of fraud by the Chief Justice to cover earlier frauds she committed; • creation by the Chief Justice of fictitious inscriptions in appeal in a futile attempt to improperly confer jurisdiction on a panel; • planning and executing a plan between counsel for CBC/Radio-Canada and Schrager, J. to preclude the exercise of his rights in the Superior Court; • resort by the Chief Justice to desperate measures to cover up for counsel for CBC/Radio-Canada by having a door locked to prevent his access to a court room; • an allegation that Wery, J. was running a Kangaroo court because a judgment he rendered on October 30, 2013 was not entered on the Superior Court computerized docket until November 20. [ 20 ] The conclusions of this motion ask that this panel allow Mr.

Mazhero's appeals from the judgments of Schrager, J., Rolland, C,J. and Wery, J., as well as "directing the Superior Court to grant the relief sought by the Petitioner in his inscription in appeal filed on March 19, 2013 (from the judgment of De Wever, J.)." This would mean a condemnation of the respondents to pay him the principal amount of $17,900,000, despite the fact that his claim in the Superior Court was for $12,000,000. [ 21 ] It will be seen that there is a flagrant contradiction in Mr.

Mazhero's view that a panel of the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain his leave applications, but does have jurisdiction to allow those appeals as if leave had been granted, and then, to effectively reverse the Court's judgment of July 15, 2013 dismissing his appeal from the judgment of De Wever, J. by ordering the Superior Court to grant him the relief he sought in his inscription in appeal (which differs from that sought in the Superior Court). [19] When asked at the hearing how this panel could possibly issue the requested orders, his answer was that fraud unravels all. [ 22 ] Whatever the accuracy of that maxim may be, it is inapplicable to three judges of this Court when asked to effectively annul the conclusion of three other judges of this Court dismissing an appeal, and even less so, in the same exercise, allow his appeal and maintain the action in the Superior Court that was dismissed by what is now a final judgment.

Moreover, while fraud may unravel all, specious and unsupportable allegations of fraud unravel nothing. [ 23 ] For that reason, and also because of the abusive language in the motion, it will be dismissed. Disposition of CBC/Radio-Canada's motion to have Mr. Mazhero declared a vexatious litigant [ 24 ] In dismissing an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment prior to that on the merits rendered by De Wever, J., our colleague Morissette, J.A. said this of Mr.

Mazhero: [2] From his motion for leave to appeal, and from other materials emanating from him and filed in support of his leave application, the petitioner comes across as, either, the victim of concerted efforts by counsel for other parties to mislead the courts in a manner prejudicial to the petitioner's case or, alternatively, as an imaginative conspiracy theorist bent on spreading scandalous allegations against judges and members of the Bar involved in his action for defamation and who try to bring the matter to trial.

[3] Fortunately, in order to dispose of the application now before me, I do not have to determine which of these two descriptions best fits the facts. [20] [Emphasis added.] [ 25 ] Having regard to the lengthy record of Mr. Mazhero's conduct that is set out in the judgment of Tremblay-Lamer, J. and in the reasons for judgment of Schrager, J., the time has now come to emphatically state the obvious: Mr.

Mazhero is indeed "an imaginative conspiracy theorist bent on spreading scandalous allegations against judges and members of the Bar involved in his action for defamation". [ 26 ] Without purporting to be an exhaustive account of his interaction with this Court, its judges and personnel in the nine court files that have been opened since June of 2012, a review of some of what has transpired since then until now is in order. [ 27 ] In addition to the scandalous allegations in his proceedings, his conduct in this Court appears to be no different in many respects than that observed in the Federal Court.

He inundates the Court with lengthy letters and emails, many of which enclose documents on a repetitive basis. He seeks orders in some such letters to judges who plainly have no jurisdiction to entertain or issue them, quite apart from the fact that judges do not adjudicate requests in letters, but in valid legal proceedings. [21] [ 28 ] Neither counsel nor litigants should correspond with judges concerning the substance of cases, but there are no limits to Mr. Mazhero's non-observance of this basic rule in the conduct of appellate litigation.

On December 11, 2013, in the week leading up to the hearing before the panel on December 16, he sent the undersigned judges a 59-page letter (including attachments) that amounts to nothing less than an unauthorized and wholly irregular written pleading.

Also on December 11, he sent a 26-page letter to Chief Justice McLachlin as well as to the federal and provincial ministers of justice, with copies to (amongst others) Dalphond and Hilton, JJ.A that asserts a variety of grievances and concludes by affirming that the members of this panel have jurisdiction to grant his sui generis motion. [ 29 ] A further example of this improper practice is a 30-page missive to Hilton, J.A. dated November 22, 2013 that amounts to another unauthorized, irregular written pleading in support of his position in the various motions that were then pending before the Court. [ 30 ] Even worse, however, after the various motions had been taken under advisement after the hearing on December 16, Mr.

Mazhero continued to correspond with the members of the panel. He did so on December 17 in support of his position that he had argued at the hearing that the various judgments adverse to him had been obtained by fraud, and that the Court should grant him the relief he requested. [ 31 ] In all, from the first to the most recent correspondence received from Mr.

Mazhero since June of 2012, he has sent no less than 63 letters and 75 emails addressed to the Court or to its judges. [ 32 ] Such letters and emails occupy an inordinate amount of time of the jurists in the Court's Registry and are of no utility in the orderly disposition of his files. In so doing, he misconceives the role of judges of this Court, whose duty it is to speak through judgments, and not otherwise.

He similarly misconceives how to conduct appellate litigation, which is carried out through valid written proceedings, not letters. [ 33 ] The content of his proceedings and letters are often insulting to judges and the Court's personnel as well as to counsel for adverse parties.

He constantly invokes not only fraudulent conduct of counsel but also of judges. [22] He has complained to the Chief Justice of this Court that she has allowed corruption to reign in this Court, [23] and that she falsified the Court's computerized dockets. [24] Some of his motions are so irregular that the extraordinary but nevertheless entirely justifiable step had to be taken to refuse to place them on the role for hearing. [25] Some of the requests in his seemingly endless correspondence with the Chief Justice and to the Registry are so preposterous as to not warrant even an acknowledgement, let alone a substantive response.

Moreover, he clearly misunderstands the concept of contempt of court, having made a request in this Court with respect to the conduct of counsel in the Superior Court, when there does not appear to have been a motion for contempt, let alone a judgment to that effect in the Superior Court. [26] [ 34 ] He has no understanding of the role of a chief justice in the administration of the cases that come before the Court or that of its judges.

As a simple illustration of the foregoing, he requested the Chief Justice to set aside the judgment of this Court dismissing his appeal from the judgment of De Wever, J. [27] and to order a hearing before five different judges of the Court. [28] [ 35 ] On November 13, 2013, he wrote to the chief justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, this Court and the Superior Court, as well as to the ministers of justice of Canada and Quebec.

Apart from complaining about the judgment of Wery, J. that is the subject of one of his four applications for leave to appeal that the Court will dismiss, he sought an order from this Court's Chief Justice requiring that his leave applications be granted and the motion to have him declared a vexatious litigant in this Court be dismissed.

He further requested the Chief Justice of the Superior Court to order the revocation of the judgments of De Wever and Schrager, JJ. [ 36 ] On December 3, 2013 he again wrote to the chief justices of the Supreme Court of Canada and this Court as well as to the federal and provincial ministers of justice complaining of the conspiracy of which he has been a victim in the Superior Court, and the injustice inflicted on him by having the various motions for leave now before the Court heard by a panel of three judges instead of a judge in chambers.

He further requested the federal minister of justice to order an inquiry into the conduct of the various judges mentioned in his letter and also requested the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to grant his various requests to that Court. [ 37 ] In addition, Mr.

Mazhero has engaged in continuing attempts to obtain the recording of an exchange with Dalphond, J.A. in a courtroom when there was no proceeding on the roll that day in which he was a party. [29] The request has been consistently and properly refused for the very good reason that the exchange did not occur in the context of a case that was actually before Dalphond, J.A. [ 38 ] He has further alleged a conspiracy between the Chief Justice of this Court and the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada to

prevent some of his applications for leave to be submitted to that Court, and has requested the intervention of the Chief Justice of Canada to allow for such applications to be submitted to that Court. [30] [ 39 ] At the hearing in this Court, he accused one of its jurists of falsifying the Court's computerized docket in his cases, and alluded to the possibility that she may have committed a criminal offence in doing so. [31] He further allowed as how the spectre of racism hung over his cases in this Court since none of its judges or personnel share his racial background, thus leaving the impression he believes that the adverse results he has experienced are racially motivated.

Such unfounded assertions bring to mind the allegations of undue influence by members of the Canadian Jewish community in the adjudication of deportation proceedings in the Supreme Court of Canada in Mugesera v Canada (M.C.I.) that the Court described as constituting "an unqualified and abusive attack on the integrity of the Judges of this Court / une veritable attaque contre l'intégrité des juges de notre Cour". [32] That is no less the case when he raises the spectre of racism as an explanation for the outcome of his proceedings. [ 40 ] It is apparent that Mr.

Mazhero is obsessed with overturning the judgment of De Wever, J., despite the dismissal of his appeal by this Court and the dismissal of his leave application to the Supreme Court.

In turn, the underlying multi-million dollar claim against the respondents that has been definitively dismissed, in effect, was nothing other than an impermissible collateral attack on the judgment of the Federal Court barring him from bringing any proceedings in that court without its leave. [33] He appears to be ready to go to any and all lengths to achieve such a result, however farfetched that may be. [ 41 ] In the very recent case of Shama Textiles inc. c. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's , [34] the Court was invited to declare a party to be a quarrelsome litigant.

In granting the motion, the Court justified its conclusion as follows: [28] La Cour est d’avis que les appelantes ont fait preuve d’un comportement quérulent au sens du paragraphe 95(1) des Règles de la Cour, c’est-à-dire qu’elles exercent leur droit d’ester en justice « de manière excessive ou déraisonnable/in an excessive or unreasonable manner ».

Comme nous l’avons noté plus haut, les appelantes attaquent de manière indigne et répétée l’intégrité des juges et des membres du Barreau; elles avancent à répétition des arguments frivoles, vexatoires et calomnieux dans le seul but de remettre en cause des jugements passés en force de chose jugée; elles présentent des affidavits comportant des allégations fausses, invraisemblables et diffamatoires; elles multiplient des arguments sans fondement. Bref, elles font preuve d’un comportement qui, selon la jurisprudence de cette Cour, justifie de les déclarer plaideurs quérulents : voir, par ex. Liu c.

McGill University , 2012 QCCA 1642 ; Brousseau c. Montréal (Ville de) , 2012 QCCA 1547 . [ 42 ] The comments underlined above could just as easily have been written with respect to Mr. Mazhero, and call for a similar determination insofar as he is concerned. [ 43 ] In the same vein, the following observations of Saunders, J.A., sitting as a judge in chambers of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, also warrant mention.

He had before him an application to stay the appeal of a self-represented litigant, whose abusive conduct led the learned judge to say this: 44 […] from what I have seen on this and other matters on our Court's docket, it seems to me that litigants such as Mr. Doncaster appear to fall into a camp of persons who claim an unconditional, and unassailable "right to appeal" every step, in every case. Persons who hold such a view are seriously misguided or ill-informed. No right is absolute.

In our free and democratic society every right, privilege or interest is balanced and held in check by other rights, privileges and interests. The opportunity to appeal is regulated by long held practices and rules, by which deadlines, substance, style and content are strictly enforced.

Those unwilling or unprepared to follow those strictures do so at their peril. 45 Litigants, self-represented or not, with legitimate interests at stake will be treated with respect and will quickly come to realize that judges, lawyers and court staff are prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate their needs, to explain procedures that may seem foreign, and to ensure that the merits of their disputes will be heard.

They and their cases will be seen as the raison d'être for access to justice. 46 Litigants, self-represented or not, with a different agenda designed to wreak havoc on the system by a succession of endless, mindless or mind-numbing paper or electronic filings, or meant to drive a spouse or opposite party to distraction or despair or financial ruin will quickly come to realize that the Court's patience, tolerance and largesse have worn thin. They and their cases will be seen as an affront to justice and summarily shown the door. [35] [Emphasis added.] [ 44 ] Like the case of Mr.

Doncaster in Nova Scotia, the time has come to show the door to Mr. Mazhero, and thus to put an end to his unfettered access to this Court. An appropriate order circumscribing that access will therefore be issued, including a declaration that he is a vexatious litigant in the current and any future files with respect to these parties and their counsel, as well as any future files involving other parties and the same or other counsel. Given Mr.

Mazhero's predilection for inundating the Court with letters and emails, an appropriate order directing the Court's Registry not to distribute any such letters and emails to judges of the Court to whom they are addressed will also be entered, as will a direction that the Registry may deal with them in such manner as may be deemed appropriate without the necessity of acknowledging their receipt or answering same. [ 45 ] These are, to be sure, harsh and exceptional orders.

Nevertheless, this Court will not hesitate to adopt measures of this nature in response to abusive conduct by litigants, whether they act on their own behalf or, as occurred in the Shama Textiles case, through the intermediary of counsel. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 46 ] DISMISSES Francis Mazhero's applications for leave to appeal in case numbers 500-09-023935-133, 500-09-023936-131 and 500-09-024007-130, the whole with costs against him in respect of each of his four motions; [ 47 ] DISMISSES the conclusions in the motion of CBC/Radio-Canada to dismiss the motions for leave to appeal of Francis

Mazhero as being contrary to

article 88 C.C.P. [ 48 ] GRANTS the motion of CBC/Radio-Canada to declare Francis Mazhero a vexatious litigant pursuant to articles 94 and 95 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal in Civil Matter , the whole with costs against him; [ 49 ] DECLARES Francis Mazhero to be a vexatious litigant in this Court with respect to all opposing parties and all counsel in all existing files in this Court and any future files involving any of the parties identified in the style of cause of these proceedings; [ 50 ] PROHIBITS Francis Mazhero from filing any proceeding of any nature whatsoever with the Court's Registry against all parties and all counsel in any pending or future files involving any such party, without having first obtained, by way of a motion that is in strict conformity with all of the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeal in Civil Matters , the authorization of the Chief Justice or a judge the Chief Justice designates; [ 51 ] ORDERS the Court's Registry to refuse to accept any proceeding from or in the name of Francis Mazhero for production that has not been previously authorized in accordance with the terms of this judgment, and to return the same to him forthwith. [ 52 ] DECLARES Francis Mazhero to be a vexatious litigant in this Court with respect to any other opposing parties and all counsel in any other such file in this Court and any such future files involving any other parties not identified in the style of cause of these proceedings; [ 53 ] PROHIBITS Francis Mazhero from filing any proceeding of any nature whatsoever with the Court's Registry with respect to any other opposing parties and all counsel in any such future files involving any other parties not identified in the style of cause of these proceedings, without having first obtained, by way of motion that is in strict conformity with the all of the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeal in Civil Matters , the authorization of the Chief Justice or a judge the Chief Justice designates; [ 54 ] ORDERS the Court's Registry to refuse to accept any proceeding from or in the name of Francis Mazhero for production that has not been previously authorized in accordance with the terms of this judgment, and to return the same to him forthwith; [ 55 ] DIRECTS the Court's Registry not to distribute any correspondence or emails from Francis Mazhero to any of the judges of this Court to whom they are addressed, but otherwise to deal with them in such manner as may be considered appropriate, without the necessity of acknowledging receipt or answering same.

PIERRE J. DALPHOND, J.A. ALLAN R. HILTON, J.A. LORNE GIROUX, J.A. Francis Mazhero In person Mtre Barry Landy SPIEGEL SOHMER INC. For CBC/Radio-Canada and Microsoft Corporation Mtre Stéphane Richer BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS For Bell Canada Date of hearing: December 16, 2013