2013 QCCA 1616, 2013 QCCA 1616

Liu c. McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association 2013 QCCA 1616 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-023571-136 DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JULIE DUTIL, J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. JACQUES R. FOURNIER, J.A. JISHENG LIU APPELLANT- Plaintiff v. McGILL UNIVERSITY NON-ACADEMIC CERTIFIED ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT - Defendant JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondent filed a motion to declare the appellant a quarrelsome litigant. The motion describes the vexatious proceedings introduced by the appellant and his quarrelsome conduct: 4. On or about July 29, 2009, Mr.

Liu filed a first complaint against MUNACA before the Commission des relations du travail (CRT), claiming that MUNACA had not respected its obligation of equality of treatment, under

section 47.2 of the Québec Labour Code , by not filing a grievance to contest the refusal of the employer (McGill University) to hire him as a janitor, due to discrimination based on ethnicity and language such as it appears from the complaint and enclosed documents, exhibit R-1 en liasse ; 5. On or about November 6, 2009, Mr. Liu filed a second complaint against MUNACA before the CRT, claiming that MUNACA had not respected its obligation of equality of treatment, under

section 47.2 of the Québec Labour Code , by not filing a grievance to contest the employer's refusal to take him back to work in November 2008, due to discrimination based on ethnicity and disability such as it appears from the complaint and enclosed documents, exhibit R-2 en liasse ; 6. On June 23, 2010, the CRT rendered its decision concerning the two complaints, rejecting them both, such as it appears from the decision, exhibit R-3; 7. On or about July 21, 2010, Mr. Liu filed a motion for review of the CRT's decision, exhibit R-4; 8.

On February 4, 2011, the CRT rendered its decision in review and dismissed Mr. Liu's motion for review stating that Mr. Liu wanted the review panel to reappraise the evidence, which is not its role in review, the whole as it appears from the decision, R-5; 9. On or about February 28, 2011, Mr. Liu filed an application for judicial review before the Superior Court to set aside the CRT's 2010 and 2011 decisions with respect to his first complaint of July 29, 2009, relating to his not obtaining the janitor's position, such as it appears from the procedures, exhibit R-6 en liasse ; 10.

On March 30, 2012, date of which the application was to be heard before the Superior Court, Mr. Liu made a verbal motion for recusation of Justice Gérard Dugré (Justice Dugré), assigned to hear the application, which was dismissed by the latter on the same day, such as it appears from the decision, exhibit R-7; 11. On or about April 23, 2012, Mr. Liu filed a motion for leave to appeal the Dugré Judgment, exhibit R-8 en liasse ; 12. On May 18, 2012, the Court of Appeal fixed peremptorily the motion to June 22, 2012, after a second request for postponement, exhibit R-9; 13.

On June 22, 2012, the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the Dugré Judgment, such as it appears from the decision, exhibit R-10; 14. On or about July 8, 2012, Mr. Liu filed a motion in revocation of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal on June 22, 2012, exhibit R-11 en liasse ; 15. On September 10, 2012, the Court of appeal dismissed Liu's motion in revocation such as it appears from the decision, exhibit R- 12;

16. On or about January 19, 2011, Mr. Liu filed a third complaint against MUNACA before the CRT, claiming that MUNACA had not respected its obligation of equality of treatment, under

section 47.2 of the Québec Labour Code , by not allowing him to be represented by an attorney of this choice in the arbitration hearing held pursuant to MUNACA'S grievance regarding the fictitious abolition of Liu's position as a research technician. An agreement between MUNACA and Liu had been entered into by the parties, on June 2 and 3, 2010, which provided that Liu's own lawyer, Me François Garneau, would represent him at MUNACA's partial expense in the arbitration hearing.

Liu revoked his lawyer's mandate after the first day of the hearing and decided that he would be acting personally instead, procedures are attached as exhibit R-13 en liasse ; 17. On or about November 22, 2011, Mr. Liu filed a motion asking for the recusation of the Commissioner Louise Verdone assigned to hear the third complaint, exhibit R-14; 18. On February 2, 2012, the Vice-President of the CRT, Me Irène Zaïkoff, dismissed the motion in recusation, such as it appears from the decision, exhibit R-15; 19.

On May 30, 2012, the CRT rendered its decision (D-14) and dismissed Liu's third complaint, such as it appears from the decision, exhibit R-16; 20. On or about June 27, 2012, Mr. Liu filed a motion for review and revocation of the CRT's decision of May 30, 2012, exhibit R-17 en liasse ; 21. On or about November 2, 2012, Mr. Liu amended his motion for review and revocation, such as it appears from the procedures, exhibit R-18; 22. On February 25, 2013, the CRT dismissed Mr. Liu's motion for review and revocation, such as it appears from the decision, exhibit R-19; 23.

On or about November 18, 2011, Liu filed a motion to institute proceedings before the Superior Court alleging, inter alia, discrimination on MUNACA's part Mr. Liu reiterated his complaints concerning the unpaid leave of absence, the employer's refusal to hire him as a janitor, the fact that MUNACA excluded the factors of discrimination and reasonable accommodation in the grievance relating to the fictitious abolition of his research technician's position and invokes Charter rights violations, the whole as it appears from the procedures, exhibit R-20 en liasse ; 24.

On or about December 15, 2011, MUNACA filed a declinatory notice asking the Court to reject Mr. Liu's motion because the Court would not have jurisdiction to hear a recourse based on the Québec Labour Code and that there is res judicata on the facts alleged in the motion, exhibit R-21; 25. On or about February 4, 2012, Mr. Liu amended his motion, exhibit R-22; 26. On or about February 5, 2012, Mr. Liu filed a motion to dismiss MUNACA's declinatory notice, such as it appears from the procedures, exhibit R-23; 27. On or about February 9, 2012, Mr.

Liu filed a request for recusation of Justice Paul Mayer (Justice Mayer), who was presiding the hearing on the declinatory notice, exhibit R-24; 28. On February 14, 2012, Justice Mayer dismissed the request for recusation, exhibit R-25; 29. On April 2, 2012, Justice Mayer decided that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case and that there was res judicata, such as it appears from the decision, exhibit R-26; 30. On or about April 30, 2012, Mr. Liu filed an inscription in appeal, exhibit R-27; 31. On or about August 2, 2012, Mr.

Liu filed a motion for extension of the prescribed time to file his factum, exhibit R-28; 32. On October 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a certificate of deserted appeal, exhibit R-29; 33. On or about October 10, 2012, Mr. Liu filed a motion for an extension of the prescribed time to file his factum, exhibit R-30; 34. On or about October 21, 2012, Mr. Liu filed a motion to restore his appeal R-31. 35. On November 26, 2012, the Court of Appeal rejected Mr.

Liu's motion for restoration of appeal as follows, exhibit R-32; "Indeed, the Petitioner is engaged in a pattern of appeals to higher courts and Motions to recuse the various judges before whom he appears or to revoke their judgments which is again demonstrated by the proceedings before us. The Petitioner's position is that the courts are compelling him to institute proceedings because they pronounce erroneous, mistaken decisions. The Petitioner raises no arguments that would justify granting his Motions on their merit". 36. On or about January 16, 2013, Mr.

Liu filed an application for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada, exhibit R-33; 37. On or about May 9 th 2013, the leave was refused, with costs, exhibit R-34; 38. On or about October 9, 2012, Mr. Liu filed a motion asking the Superior Court to declare that the June 2 nd 2010 Agreement between him and MUNACA was valid, that MUNACA had infringed it and that he had the right to represent himself or be represented by a lawyer of his choice for the arbitration relating to the abolition of his position of research technician, exhibit R-35;

39. On or about November 8, 2012, MUNACA filed a notice to disclose a preliminary exception to dismiss the action on the basis that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case and that there was re judicata, exhibit R-36; 40. On or about November 29, 2012, Mr. Liu filed an amended motion for declaratory judgment, exhibit R-37; 41. On or about December 12, 2012, Mr. Liu filed a motion to dismiss MUNACA'S preliminary exception, exhibit R-38; 42.

On February 18, 2013, Justice Stéphane Sansfaçon (Justice Sansfaçon) of the Superior Court, granted MUNACA's preliminary exception and dismissed Liu's motion for declaratory judgment, based on the lack of jurisdiction of the Superior Court and res judicata, exhibit R-39; 43. On or about February 25, 2013, Liu filed a motion in revocation of Justice Sansfaçon's Judgment exhibit R-40; 44. On or about March 4, 2013, Liu field a motion for leave to appeal Justice Sansfaçon's Judgment, exhibit R-41; 45.

On March 11, 2013, the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, since no leave to appeal was necessary, exhibit R-42; 46. On or about March 18 th , 2013, Mr. Liu filed an appeal of Justice Sansfaçon's judgment, exhibit R-43; 47. On or about April 3 rd 2013, MUNACA filed a motion to dismiss said appeal; 48. Mr. Liu filed a motion to plead in writing as well as a motion to postpone; 49. He then failed to present himself to plead his motion to plead in writing, such as it appears from the minutes of the hearing, exhibit R-44; 50.

On or about May 21 st , MUNACA opposed these motions, such as it appears from the e-mail sent by MUNACA to the Court of Appeal, exhibit R-45; 51. MUNACA introduced a Motion to declare Mr. Liu a vexatious litigant in file 500-17-074065-122 in front of the Superior Court of Québec, which was granted on April 11 th , 2013 by said Court, the whole as it appears from the decision, R-46; 52. Mr. Liu is now appealing the decision, essentially alleging that the Court made factual errors deciding that he was a vexatious litigant, exhibit R-47; 53.

Concurrently with the present motion, MUNACA is filing a motion to dismiss this appeal; 54. As it more fully appears from the above, Mr. Liu constantly appeals any unfavourable decision rendered against him, considering every loss he faces as necessarily ill-founded in fact and in law; 55. In addition, Mr. Liu constantly requests for the revocation of the decisions as well as for the recusation of the presiding judges; 56. Mr. Liu has a behaviour which corresponds specifically to the definition of querulous litigant, as more fully explained by applicable caselaw; 57. Indeed, Mr.

Liu focuses all his energy to judicial pursuits which are abusive and ill-founded, acting in demand rather than in defence, multiplying the legal actions against judges, restating the same questions by successive recourses, looking for a similar result notwithstanding past defeats, raising incongruent and at the limit of rationality legal arguments, appealing most of the decisions that are adversarial and representing himself for the most part; 58. MUNACA respectfully submits that it is not only in the interest of justice that Mr.

Liu's right to litigate be circumscribed but it is also in the interest of MUNACA that the filing of legal procedures by Mr. Liu involving MUNACA be submitted to authorization of the Chief Justice of this Court; 59.

This motion is well-founded in law and in fact. [ 2 ] The Court is of the view that the respondent has demonstrated that the appellant is a quarrelsome litigant. [ 3 ] It is worth noting that the Court, on September 14, 2012, declared the respondent a quarrelsome litigant with respect to McGill University, [1] in a related file (the appellant's various claims against both McGill University and the respondent arise from an employment problem).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 4 ] GRANTS the motion, with costs; [ 5 ] DECLARES Jisheng Liu a quarrelsome litigant with respect to McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association (MUNACA); [ 6 ] PROHIBITS Jisheng Liu from filing any other proceedings in the Court of Appeal, directly or indirectly, without prior authorization of the Chief Justice or the judge that the Chief Justice designates for this purpose; [ 7 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Appeal to refuse the filing of any proceeding from Mr.

Liu involving MUNACA until the filing of such proceeding has been authorized in writing by the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal or a judge she has designated.

JULIE DUTIL, J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. JACQUES R. FOURNIER, J.A. Jisheng Liu (absent) Mtre Sibel Ataogul MELANÇON MARCEAU GRENIER & SCIORTINO For the Respondent Date of hearing: September 16, 2013