2020 QCCA 1348, 2020 QCCA 1348

Hrabovskyy c. Chubb European Group Limited 2020 QCCA 1348 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-029003-209 ( 500-17-110369-199 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: October 19, 2020 THE HONOURABLE ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. APPLICANT Volodymyr Hrabovskyy Unrepresented By videoconference RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Chubb European Group limited Chubb canada (insurance) Mtre Élisabeth Laroche ( Robinson Sheppard Shapiro ) By conference call DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment terminating the proceeding rendered on July 8, 2020 by the Honourable Mr.

Justice Marc St-Pierre of the Superior Court , District of Montréal (Art. 30 para. 2 and 357 C.P.P. or art. 31 C.P.P. ) . Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 11:29 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary remarks. 11:30 Submissions by Mr. Hrabovskyy.

11:48 Submissions by Mtre Laroche. 11:57 Mtre Laroche will send to the Court a copy of her motion in Superior Court by e- mail. 12:01 Reply by Mr. Hrabovskyy. 12:11 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal the judgment rendered on July 8, 2020 by the Honourable Mr.

Justice Marc St-Pierre of the Superior Court, District of Montreal declaring his statement of claim against the respondents to be an abusive procedure and dismissing it on that ground. [ 2 ] Though it is difficult to make sense of the applicant’s proceedings and arguments, which are, at best, characterized as confusing and unclear, I understand that the thrust of his large monetary claim against the respondents flows from a travel insurance policy which was issued by Chubb European Group SE (“Chubb Europe”).

The applicant was allegedly somehow exposed to a chemical or solvent while studying at a university in Norway and suffered a medical condition as a result.

He sued the Norwegian university and Chubb Europe before the Norwegian courts, but appears unsatisfied with the process or the result of that suit. [ 3 ] The applicant is now suing Chubb Europe and Chubb Insurance Company of Canada (“Chubb Canada”) before the Quebec Superior Court under the travel insurance policy and seems to be asserting a form of solidarity between Chubb Europe and Chubb Canada with respect to claims under that policy, even if the underlying events occurred in Norway. [ 4 ] The respondents sought to have the suit dismissed for abuse of process.

St-Pierre, J.S.C. agreed with them, notably referring to the arguments the applicant presented to him at the hearing, which he considered “ill-founded and in the opinion of this judge, wacky”: Transcription of reasons for judgment, para. 4. In the judge’s opinion, the claim had to be dismissed since “Courts of justice should be taken seriously with a concern not only for the parties but also for the taxpayers”: Id. , para. 6. [ 5 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal on various grounds, notably that the judge erred with respect to (

a) the amounts claimed, (

b) the solidarity between Chubb Europe and Chubb Canada and (

c) the bodily injury he suffered in Norway. However, as already noted, his written and oral submissions on these matters and the abundance of documents filed in support of these submissions are confusing and unclear. Moreover, they fail to address the issue of abuse of process. [ 6 ] It is appropriate to note that the applicant was involved in various suits claiming large sums of money from third parties.

These were dismissed because of the vexatious nature of the proceedings and the quarrelsome nature of the applicant. [ 7 ] On April 10, 2017, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer of the Federal Court dismissed various proceedings initiated by the applicant against the federal government and ordered that no further proceedings be initiated by him without the prior authorization of the Federal Court: Hrabovskyy v. Canada , 2017 CF 355 . She described the applicant’s conduct as follows ( Id. , para. 61): [61] The applicant has relitigated numerous matters.

In fact, all his motions seem to restate the same incoherent arguments over and over, without regard to what is relevant to each specific motion. The applicant has also instigated numerous unsuccessful appeals. He seems to fail to understand the purpose of the proceedings he brings and to be unable to concentrate on the issues relevant to a specific step in the litigation. At every stage, he restated his arguments as if the motion was a new proceeding instead of focusing on the issues at play.

As noted by Justice Layden-Stevenson in Canada v Mennes , 2004 FC 1731 at para 77 , this tends to be indicative of vexatious proceedings. [ 8 ] This Court has also noted the vexatious nature of the litigation initiated by the applicant and his quarrelsome nature. The applicant had initiated proceedings against various insurance companies unrelated to the respondents in these proceedings, seeking $360 million in compensation and the dissolution of the faculty of the University of Montreal that had made adverse decisions with respect to his continued studies.

In summarily dismissing his appeal from a judgment declaring the proceedings vexatious, the Court recently noted the following in Hrabovsky v.

DAS, Compagnie d’assurances de protection juridique limitée , 2020 QCCA 956 , paras. 8-9 : [8] De plus, les procédures de l’appelant en appel sous-tendent un problème manifeste de quérulence et paraissent à leur face même abusives. [9] Il n’est donc pas dans l’intérêt de la justice d’accaparer davantage les ressources judiciaires pour une affaire dont l’enflure documentaire que veut y donner l’appelant est la meilleure démonstration de l’inintelligibilité qui caractérise ses procédures en appel. [ 9 ] Unfortunately, similar conduct appears in these proceedings.

As a result, leave to appeal shall be denied since the proposed appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 10 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal and REFUSES leave to appeal the judgment rendered on July 8, 2020 by the Honourable Mr. Justice Marc St-Pierre of the Superior Court, District of Montreal; [ 11 ] THE WHOLE with legal costs. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A.