2021 QCCA 1615, 2021 QCCA 1615

Hrabovskyy c. Attorney General of Canada 2021 QCCA 1615 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029427-218 ( 500-17-110371-195 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: October 25, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A. APPELLANT VOLODYMYR HRABOVSKYY Unrepresented (By videoconference) RESPONDENT COUNSEL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Mtre JESSICA PIZZOLI (by videoconference) ( Department of Justice Canada ) On appeal from a judgment rendered on February 25, 2021 (rectified March 15, 2021) by the Honourable Martin F.

Sheehan of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365 C.C.P .) Clerk at the hearing : Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 14:04 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of appellant and counsel. 14:05 Submissions by Mr. Hrabovskyy.

14:55 By the Court: judgment – see page 3. Robert Osadchuck, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Appellant has instituted litigation relating, directly or indirectly, to two issues: an exposure to chemicals in a lab in Norway while he was a student and his expulsion from the Université de Montréal’s law faculty. [ 2 ] The Respondent and the Université de Montréal [1] , who are the principal targets of his litigation, made motions in Superior Court in court files 500-17-110371-195 and 500-17-106731-196 to have him declared a vexatious or quarrelsome litigant.

The motions were heard together, and on February 25, 2021 (rectified March 15, 2021), Justice Martin Sheehan of the Superior Court granted them. [2] The Appellant has appealed from that judgment, and the Respondent and UdeM (in court record 500-09-029435-211) present motions to dismiss the appeal. [ 3 ] The judge analyzed in detail all of the relevant factors for a finding of vexatiousness, and his judgment is clear and convincing. The Appellant does not identify anything that could amount to a manifest and overriding error in the judge’s analysis on the issue of vexatiousness.

Rather, the grounds raised in the notice of appeal relate to certain preliminary matters that the Appellant wished to raise and to the merits of the litigation. [ 4 ] The judgment is well founded on the issue of vexatiousness. The recourses that the Appellant seeks to pursue are clearly unfounded, and he has been unsuccessful at every level. Each judicial defeat is met with an appeal and new litigation against the same or new parties. The remedies he claims bear no relation to reality. The language that he uses is excessive and he verbally attacks judges, court officials and lawyers.

His written pleadings are “illogical and incoherent ramblings”. [3] [ 5 ] In sum, the appeal has no reasonable chance of success and should be dismissed at this preliminary stage. [ 6 ] The Court notes the broad scope of the conclusions in Superior Court: the Appellant is prohibited from instituting any new proceeding and not just one against the Respondent or UdeM or one related directly or indirectly to the two issues mentioned above.

The judge has discretion in the matter and the Appellant has neither contested the scope of the conclusions nor identified any manifest and overriding error in the exercise of discretion by the judge. Moreover, this prohibition simply means that, as a preliminary step, any new proceeding must be authorized by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court or his delegate, on the basis that there is some merit to it. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] GRANTS the application to dismiss the appeal; [ 8 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A.