2022 QCCQ 9699, 2022 QCCQ 9699

E.M. c. Ontario Human Rights Commission 2022 QCCQ 9699 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-717673-224 DATE: November 21, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ E. M. [1] Plaintiff v.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In April 2022, the plaintiff filed an application before the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division in which alleges that she was psychologically and physically harassed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“ Commission ”) and was a victim of attempted murder, and claims $15,000 in damages. [ 2 ] The Commission moves to dismiss the application on the grounds that it constitutes an abuse of proceedings under

article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P. ”) notably because it is clearly unfounded, frivolous or vexatious. [ 3 ] The application and the application to dismiss arise in the following context. [ 4 ] Between April 2021 and April 2022, the plaintiff filed 40 lawsuits before the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division against various defendants, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

In each of these applications, she claims $15,000 in damages, in most cases because she alleges that she was a victim of psychological and physical harassment by each of the defendants. [ 5 ] The entities sued by the plaintiff include the Government of Canada, the Government of Québec, various foreign states, the City of Montréal (Montreal Police Department), former employees and work colleagues, a hospital where she received treatment, as well as a psychiatrist who provided medical care to her. [ 6 ] By case management orders issued on December 2, 2021, and July 7, 2022, the undersigned was appointed to case manage 31 of the lawsuits filed by the plaintiff. [2] [ 7 ] A number of the defendants have filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff’s application is an abusive proceeding under to

article 51 C.C.P. Some of the defendants have also asked the Court to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant. [ 8 ] Ex officio , the Court also raised the issue of whether the plaintiff’s lawsuits constitute an abuse of procedure and whether she should be declared a vexatious litigant. [ 9 ] The Court called all the parties to a hearing on October 24, 2022, to hear their evidence and submissions on the applications for dismissal and on the issue of quarrelsomeness. [ 10 ] This judgment disposes of the application to dismiss for abuse of procedure brought by the Commission. Analysis A.

Legal Framework: Application to Dismiss for Abuse of Procedure [ 11 ] The principles applicable to an application to dismiss for abuse of procedure under

article 51 C.C.P. are well known. Justice Martin F. Sheehan summarize them as follows in Hrabovskyy v. Attorney General of Canada : [3] 138.1. The sound administration of judicial resources is essential to ensuring access to justice. To safeguard this sound administration, courts have been granted tools to put an end to frivolous claims before they can monopolize too much of the Court’s time and energy. 138.2. This being said, the consequences of dismissing a claim at a preliminary stage are very serious. The cardinal principle of access to justice also requires that the Court exercise the greatest caution before wielding the power to dismiss a case. As a general rule,

putting a premature end to a judicial recourse should be avoided unless the claim is “necessarily doomed” and the situation is “clear and obvious.” 138.3. This caution is warranted in part because the evidence available at this preliminary stage is

summary in nature whereas the trial judge is usually better placed to decide a question in light of all the evidence filed. “[A]n action or proceeding that appears to be an abuse of process early in the proceedings will sometimes reveal itself to be quite proper as fuller evidence supporting the claim enters the record.” Thus, a request should only be granted if it is clear that further consideration or a more complete record would be superfluous. 138.4.

By separating the grounds of clearly unfounded from some of the other measures of impropriety, “the legislature has made plain that circumstances exist in which an action might have a basis in law or in fact yet still be subject to dismissal or some other sanction.” In addition to a judicial application or pleading that is clearly unfounded or frivolous, abuse of procedure includes:

a) a judicial application or pleading that is intended to delay;

b) conduct that is vexatious or quarrelsome;

c) using the procedure in a way which is excessive or unreasonable;

d) use that causes prejudice to another person; or

e) use of the procedure that attempts to defeat the ends of justice, for example, if it has the effect of limiting the freedom of expression of others in the context of public debates. 138.5. “Clearly unfounded and frivolous” is not that same as “doubtful” or “challenging.” When assessing abuse based on a proceeding being unfounded, the Court should not take into consideration the degree of difficulty that a party may have to prove its allegations. 138.6.

As part of its examination, the Court may rely on the entire record including the proceedings, exhibits and out-of-court examinations already filed by the parties. 138.7. When abuse is based on clearly unfounded proceedings or vexatious conduct, the Court may conclude that there is abuse regardless of a party’s intent. It is not necessary to demonstrate malice or bad faith on the part of the person who filed the contested pleading. 138.8.

Vexatious conduct or blameworthy behaviour in the exercise of a remedy can include making allegations or seeking conclusions that do not stand up to careful analysis and denote a propensity for exaggeration which is out of all proportion to the actual dispute between the parties. 138.9. When abuse is summarily established, the burden is shifted and the party who introduced the contested pleading must demonstrate, but only on a prima facie basis that they are not acting unreasonably and that its pleading is justified in law. 138.10. Abuse can be declared “at any time” even on the Court’s “own initiative.” 138.11.

If the situation is clear or if it is based solely on the resolution of a specific question of law, the Court must rule without unnecessarily postponing the analysis of the issue to a later judicial stage. [References omitted] B. Application to the Facts of this Case [ 12 ] As the Commission points out, the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s application are to a large extent incomprehensible, contorted, and unbelievable. It is useful to reproduce them below in full: 1.

The Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for the following reasons: I sue for psychologically and physically harassment and attempt to murder and for the facts that my rights as a living being are not respected. And for these signs that I am receiving in my physic, my hands, legs. And the smell of human gas on my nose. And for everything that I am not respected as per my will and terms. And for the fact that I let them know about this situation and they did not applied the law for human rights and did not get officially implicated in this situation.

I want to mention that I receive security on my physic, above my head, life, electrical energy, someone internal who is breathing in my face/nose and is murdering my energy, breath and some entities (death, electrical on my head which wants me to sense this as a depression), a death entity who is a criminal mumbling. They are passing through my condo, pillow mumbling, talking, beating me, harassing and forcing myself. I am forced to receive other entities/people/death/breath/emotion and my energy being murdered. I did not/am/will not accept. It is not my will.

I want them to pay $15000 and them to end or they to be put in jail. 2. The facts occurred on or around August 2, 2011, at Pierrefonds (Quebec). 3. The amount of the claim is $15,000.00. 4. The Plaintiff makes the following clarifications to the facts set out above: In 2011 in Statistic Canada l have been brainstormed/extorted, psychologically and physically harassed. In August 2011 I have received a phone call from Adnan Bouguila which told me that he was that who was harassing myself at brain/mind level/communication. I told him to end and he did not.

In am receiving messages with death from entities/people, course language messages, low vibration entities/people, disabled entities/people,

poor entities/people, global, mafia, prostitution, religion, spiritism, woohoo, from Michael Bernard Beckwith with death and miserable image with India on my bed, from Kota Webb with herself sitting on a man genital and when I dances I received this image on myself, my genital has been touched. I receive images when I am going to the washroom on the toilet paper and forced to put these images/messages on my genital, eating images/messages with low vibration, misery, toilet, shoes, excrements and urine. I am forced to flush the toilet on myself, my son and his father. My head has a system.

Messages are that I am in low maintenance, that I am a system, that I am a prostitute, that la not welcome in Canada, I am sent to different places. I am harassed with Quebec and everything related. I am an English thinker and I do not accept anything related to Quebec due to fact that I have been and am harassed/forced to accept something that I do not want. I am stateless and suverain and I am harassed for this fact and my entity/name stolen(E. M., everlife.free- hojma.). I am receiving messages in my physic. I am receiving messages that I am below. My face is pulled.

In my ears/head/around I have a disagreeable system. I have a death entity/individual(Bouchaib) who is death and murder, steal, putting his physic on/in myself, stealing romanian and english language^ am pressured to choose with a criminal/murder/death, forced to receive John Lojen frustration death entity or George Rusu death on myself, some black seems to be clouds on my head, etc.). ( sic ) [ 13 ] The Commission argues that the application is abusive in that it is clearly unfounded, frivolous, or vexatious because: 13.1. The Commission is not a legal entity that can be sued; 13.2.

The application contains no allegations that could support a claim in damages against the Commission. [ 14 ] The Commission is a statutory entity established under the Ontario Human Rights Code ( R.S.O. 1990 ch. H-19 (“ Code ”)). [ 15 ] The functions of the Commission include, among other things, to “promote and advance respect for human rights in Ontario ,” and to “protect human rights in Ontario …” [Underlining added]. [4] [ 16 ] The Commission does not operate in the province of Québec.

To do so would likely contravene the limits of its powers under the Code and the Constitution Act , 1867 . [5] [ 17 ] In White v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) , the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the Commission is not an entity that can be sued. [6] [ 18 ] This principle was reiterated in Coote v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) . [7] [ 19 ] For this reason alone, the plaintiff’s application is clearly unfounded and frivolous and thus, constitutes an abuse of procedure under

article 51 C.C.P. Dismissal under

article 53 C.C.P. is the only possible remedy. [ 20 ] In addition, the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s application are incoherent, unbelievable and are likely the product of a delusional mind. The pleading contains no allegations that could support a claim in damages against the Commission.

In such circumstances, Courts do not hesitate to dismiss such claims as abusive. [8] [ 21 ] Finally, the application raises claims that are clearly time-barred given that it alleges that “[t]he facts occurred on or around August 2, 2011” and that a three-year limitation period applies to such claims. [9] [ 22 ] In conclusion, the plaintiff’s judicial application is abusive, and it is clear and obvious that it is necessarily doomed to fail. The sound administration of justice dictates that the Court must put an end to this claim before it further monopolizes the Court’s resources.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s application to dismiss; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the plaintiff’s application is abusive; [ 25 ] DISMISSES the plaintiff’s application; [ 26 ] WITH LEGAL COSTS. __________________________________ ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: October 24, 2022