2015 QCCA 2054, 2015 QCCA 2054

Poplawski ( In Re ) 2015 QCCA 2054 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-023008-121 500-09-023034-127 500-09-023074-123 500-09-023247-133 500-09-023318-132 500-09-024100-133 500-09-024908-147 500-09-024909-145 500-09-025666-157 DATE: December 9, 2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. DOMINIQUE BÉLANGER, J.A. IN RE SLAWOMIR POPLAWSKI JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Court in this case must decide whether, proprio motu , it should declare Mr. Slawomir Poplawski a quarrelsome or vexatious litigant in the Court of Appeal.

The proceedings are based on sections 94 and 95 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal in Civil Matters [1] (“the Rules ”), which read as follows: 94. Procédures vexatoires. Lorsqu'elle est convaincue qu'une

partie en appel agit de manière vexatoire, la Cour peut, d'office ou sur requête d'une partie, ordonner le rejet de la procédure ou sa suspension aux conditions qu'elle estime appropriée. 95. Quérulence. 1) Lorsqu'une personne fait preuve d'un comportement quérulent, c'est-à-dire qu'elle exerce son droit d'ester en justice de manière excessive ou déraisonnable, la Cour peut, d'office ou sur requête d'une partie, déclarer cette personne plaideur quérulent et ordonner qu'aucune autre 94. Vexatious proceedings.

Where the Court is satisfied that a party before it is conducting a proceeding in a vexatious manner, it may order, proprio motu or upon the motion of a party, a stay of proceedings, or a suspension thereof, on the conditions it deems appropriate. 95. Quarrelsome conduct. 1) Where a person acts in a quarrelsome manner, that is to say exercises litigious rights in an excessive or unreasonable manner, the Court may, proprio motu or upon the motion of a party, declare the person to be a quarrelsome litigant and prohibit that person

procédure ne soit déposée par elle à la Cour sans autorisation préalable du juge en chef ou du juge que le juge en chef désigne à cette fin. 2) Dans les cas qui le justifient, la Cour peut interdire l'accès à ses locaux. 3) Une personne ne peut être déclarée plaideur quérulent sans avoir eu l'occasion de faire valoir les raisons pour lesquelles la Cour devrait s'abstenir de la déclarer quérulente. 4) Dans les cas où la Cour agit d'office, le greffier transmet à la personne visée, par courrier recommandé ou par tout autre moyen approprié, avec copies aux autres parties au litige, un avis l'informant du jour où elle pourra être entendue par la Cour. 5) Doivent être produits avec la demande d'autorisation de déposer un acte de procédure l'ordonnance d'assujettissement et l'acte de procédure projeté. 6) Le juge en chef ou le juge que le juge en chef désigne peut déférer la demande à la Cour, auquel cas la personne qui demande l'autorisation doit la faire signifier aux parties visées par l'acte de procédure projeté, au moins 10 jours avant la date de présentation. 7) L'acte de procédure non autorisé préalablement est réputé inexistant et le greffier, informé de l'ordonnance, doit refuser de le recevoir, exception faite de la demande d'auto​risation mentionnée précédem​ment. from filing any other proceeding in the Court without prior authorization of the Chief Justice or the judge the Chief Justice designates for this purpose.

(2) In cases which admit of it, the order may prohibit access to the Court's premises.

(3) No person may be declared a quarrelsome litigant without being first afforded the opportunity to be heard by the Court as to why that person should not be so declared.

(4) If the Court acts proprio motu against a party, the Clerk shall inform that party, by registered mail or any other appropriate means, with a copy to the other parties to the case, of the date when the Court will hear the affected party.

(5) The application to file a proceeding must be accompanied by the prohibition order and the proceeding the applicant seeks to institute.

(6) The Chief Justice or the judge the Chief Justice designates may refer the application to file a proceeding to the Court, in which case the applicant must serve it on the parties contemplated by the proposed proceeding, with a 10- day notice of presentation.

(7) An unauthorized proceeding is deemed never to have existed. When informed of a prohibition order, the Clerk must refuse to accept an unauthorized proceeding, except for an application to file a proceeding mentioned above. [ 2 ] On September 21, 2015, McGill University (“McGill”), a respondent in two appeals and related proceedings introduced by Mr. Poplawski, filed with the Court a motion (“the McGill motion”) to have Mr. Poplawski declared a quarrelsome litigant in relation to all matters in this Court which were initiated by Mr. Poplawski and which, directly or indirectly, involve McGill University.

On September 25, 2015, the Court itself, acting proprio motu , issued a notice (“the Notice”) under the above-mentioned sections 94 and 95, to be served on Mr. Poplawski, informing him that a hearing would be held in the Court of Appeal on November 27, 2015, to determine whether he should be declared a quarrelsome or vexatious litigant by the Court of Appeal in matters before the Court of Appeal. The Notice further specified that the time allotted for the hearing was 60 minutes and that he, Mr.

Poplawski, would be allowed to file a written argument at the Court, of a maximum of 30 pages, before the close of business on November 12, 2015. [ 3 ] Because they both involve the same sections in the Rules , the Court Registry scheduled these two matters to be heard on the same day, namely November 27, 2015. 1. McGill University’s Motion [ 4 ] Before hearing either of these two proceedings, the Court invited Mr. Poplawski to state whether he intended to request that Justice Morissette recuse himelf from the hearing of the McGill motion. [ 5 ] On the one hand, as had been disclosed to Mr.

Poplawski in 2012 in connection with another matter, and as was reiterated at the outset of the November 27 hearing, Justice Morissette was a full-time member of the academic staff in the Faculty of Law of McGill from 1977 to 2002. [ 6 ] On the other hand, as was also pointed out to Mr. Poplawski at the outset of the hearing, he himself had insisted on

Wednesday, December 19, 2012, that Justice Morissette, sitting alone as a motions judge, hear a motion for leave to appeal made presentable by Mr. Poplawski in the week of December 17 to 21, 2012. The respondent in this motion was the McGill University Non- Academic Certified Association (“MUNACA”). Because of his prior association with McGill and with several organisations closely linked to McGill, Justice Morissette expected, and would have been prepared to entertain, a motion for his recusation from the case. However, in light of Mr.

Poplawski’s insistence (and acknowledgment that there were no grounds for a recusation), Justice Morissette scheduled a hearing with MUNACA on December 21. This hearing proceeded as scheduled and in the presence of both parties. On January 7, 2013, Justice Morissette issued a judgment [2] declining jurisdiction to grant leave because an appeal in the case could have been instituted as of right within 30 days of the judgment. The proper procedural step to take was therefore a motion to a panel of the Court under

article 523 C.C.P. [ 7 ] In the present instance, Mr. Poplawski did indeed choose to ask for the recusation of Justice Morissette from the hearing of the McGill motion. In view of the fact that this motion emanated from McGill itself, and that it sought various constraining orders against Mr. Poplawski personally, Justice Morissette concluded that it was preferable for him to step down from a hearing of the McGill motion. Counsel for McGill were therefore informed that the hearing of their motion would have to be postponed. They were invited to leave the courtroom, which they did.

Consequently, what remained before the Court was the Notice. 2. The Court’s notice pursuant to sections 94 and 95 of the Rules [ 8 ] This matter is distinct from the McGill motion and, as will be seen, it extends well beyond any interest McGill may have in the outcome of its motion. [ 9 ] The written Notice which the Court directed to Mr. Poplawski on September 25 was formulated as follows: COURT OF APPEAL DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Montreal, September 25, 2015 To: Mr.

Slawomir Poplawski [Address] NOTICE in conformity with SECTIONS 94 and 95 of the Rules of the Court Of Appeal Of Quebec in Civil Matters In conformity with sections 94 and 95 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Civil Matters , you are hereby advised that the Court will hold a hearing on November 27, 2015 , at 9:30 am, in the Antonio-Lamer courtroom to determine whether you should be declared a vexatious litigant in the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

You are receiving this notice as a result of your conduct since the judgment of this Court rendered on September 17, 2014 concluding that you ought not to be declared a vexatious litigant: [3] • The inappropriate language used in your motions and correspondence; • The insults found in your motions and correspondence directed towards the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal of Quebec as well as the counsel appearing in your cases; • Your insistence on repeating the same questions in successive proceedings despite their repeated dismissal; • Your refusal to respect the authority of the courts.

You will find attached a list of your proceedings and correspondence filed at the Court of Appeal to which the Court might refer to at the hearing. With regard to the hearing held in conformity with sections 94 and 95, the duration of the hearing will be 60 minutes . You are allowed

to file a written argument of a maximum of 30 pages . Your argument, as well as exhibits and authorities relevant to the matter, must be filed in five copies at the office of the Court no later than November 12, 2015 . In conformity with

section 25 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Civil Matters , you are advised that the Court will not be precluded from adjudicating the issue should you fail to appear at the hearing. Mtre Pascal Pommier Clerk of Appeals A. The issue of service [ 10 ] The Notice and supporting document were sent to Mr. Poplawski by registered mail on September 25, 2015. On that same day, at 7:00 pm, as well as on September 28 at 6:00 pm, September 29 at 8:59 am, September 30 at 10:35 am and at 7:15 pm, October 1 at 2:15 pm, October 2 at 1:40 pm and October 5 at 7:05 pm, a bailiff tried, unsuccessfully, to serve Mr.

Poplawski with the aforementioned Notice and supporting document; these failed attempts are a matter of record as they appear from the bailiff’s return of service. On October 7, at 12:55 pm, a bailiff, acting pursuant to the second paragraph of

article 138 C.C.P. , affixed to the door of Mr. Poplawski’s residence the Notice and supporting document, contained in an envelope addressed to Mr. Poplawski personally. In addition to the foregoing steps, the Notice and supporting document were sent to Mr. Poplawski by email on October 7, at 2:06 pm, at his personal email address, which he had used on numerous occasions in email messages to the Court. Finally, on October 22, Canada Post delivered the same documents by certified mail to Mr. Poplawski, who accepted them by signing a receipt.

A facsimile of this signed receipt was obtained from Canada Post by the Court Registry and now forms part of the record. [ 11 ] At the hearing of November 27, Mr. Poplawski claimed that he had never received the Notice. He was told that, in the Court’s considered opinion, not only had the Notice and supporting document been legally served on him, but also that as a matter of objective fact they had been made available to him by email sent to his personal address and had been physically remitted to him in person by the Post. The Court would therefore proceed to address the merits of the Notice. B.

The merits [ 12 ] Mr. Poplawski was then asked by the Court to state his position on the applicability in his case of sections 94 and 95 of the Rules . As can be seen from the minutes of the hearing, the Court listened to Mr. Poplawski for a total duration of approximately half an hour. The Court put a few questions to him, but otherwise observed, autoptically, that he was intent on presenting what can only be described as an often incoherent, scandalous and unintelligible rant, pertaining to matters formerly before the Commission des relations du travail, the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal.

These are all matters which were conclusively dealt with in a number of final court and tribunal decisions. Despite repeated invitations to do so by the Court, Mr. Poplawski chose not to comment on the content of the Notice. He argued again that no valid service had been effected and that he had not received the Notice. He persistently refused to address the list in

Schedule I of this judgment, [4] despite the fact that he had been provided a paper copy of it which was in front of him in the courtroom. Instead, he returned again and again to the earlier grievances he had expressed in prior proceedings or in communications to the Court. After some time, it became apparent that the hearing could no longer serve a useful purpose. The Court therefore rose from the bench and brought the hearing to an end. [ 13 ] A list of the proceedings initiated by Mr. Poplawski in the Court of Appeal between September 2012 and September 25, 2015, and of the correspondence he addressed to the Court between those dates, appears in

Schedule I of this judgment. This

schedule is based on the content of the nine files that were opened by Mr. Poplawski in the Court since September of 2012. [5] Some correspondence unrelated to any of these files is also listed in

Schedule I. [ 14 ] It bears mention here that in March of 2014, the Chief Justice referred to another panel of the Court a notice under

section 94 of the Rules to determine whether Mr. Poplawski ought to be declared vexatious and made subject to a restraining order. The Court decided at that time that it would not be appropriate to do so. [6] In essence, it took the view that Mr. Poplawski was no longer in a position to abuse the Court’s processes: [37] In none of the above five files, did petitioner contest systematically our judgments through motions for revocation, for revision or through motions to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

He did not bring repetitious motions to contest the judgments of the trial courts either. [38] At the time of the hearing before us, only one file remains active (the present one): we are of the opinion that it is highly relevant to the issue we are asked to decide.

Taking into account that petitioner has been declared quarrelsome on September 2012 by judgment of the Superior Court, he cannot, as a matter of fact, introduce any further matter before us unless it relates to a judgment dismissing a motion seeking permission to introduce a new claim before a trial court or a matter where such a permission has been granted.

No such matters have come before us since the judgment declaring him quarrelsome in the Superior Court. [39] Therefore, in light of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that we are faced with a situation that deserves or gives rise to a declaration of vexatious or quarrelsome litigant before the Court of Appeal under sections 94 and 95 as per the criteria mentioned in Brousseau v. Montreal (City of).

But a review of Mr. Poplawski’s pleadings and correspondence shows that, since March 2014, his actions have gained considerably in intensity, as is well apparent from

Schedule I. [ 15 ] Prior to the judgment quoted in the previous paragraph, Mr. Poplawski had filed 11 proceedings, and corresponded 19 times with the Court Registry, the Chief Justice or other members of the Court. Since then, however, and until today, [7] Mr. Poplawski corresponded with the Court, its Chief Justice and its justices on 16 separate occasions. He also provided the Court with copies of his correspondence with justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, with other institutions or actors of the legal community (including the Quebec Bar) and with various federal and provincial members of cabinet.

The tone and content of such correspondence is repetitive and at times incomprehensible. The recurring themes and allegations found in those letters concern, inter alia , the corruption of the judicial and political systems, the lack of impartiality, independence and competence of the Court’s members, [8] the “judicial crimes” committed by the Chief Justice, the fact that Mr. Poplawski is the victim of “attacks” by “degenerate institutions” (among them, the courts and the trade union to which he once belonged), [9] etc. The language used by Mr.

Poplawski is filled with improprieties and scandalous allegations directed towards various justices of the Court, with a particular focus on the Chief Justice. [ 16 ] Although there is no shortage of illustration in the Court’s records, the following letter is a representative example of Mr. Poplawski correspondence. It was addressed to the Chief Justice in February of 2015 and it conveys Mr.

Poplawski’s reaction to an earlier letter which informed him that the only recourse available against a given judgment [10] was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (the spelling is from the original letter): Montreal, 16.02.2015 Dear Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler, In your official biography it is emphasized about your being the first woman nominated as the Chief Justice of Quebec. It sounds great and I would also congratulate you, but I have some doubts about your proper representation of this position by professionalism, manifested self-respect and high enough personal integrity.

Such qualms, concerning not only your person, have been already presented a few times to your attention as to other authorities. Unfortunately, all of them are so far treated as practically no existent. There are only a few letters from key judicial ministries acknowledging their receiving with one from the CJC even informing about the Judicial Council’s opening a file for my concerns or for their worries about me (haha!).

Yes, it can even sound humorous if we will forget for a moment that many governmental institutions cannot be trusted with their extreme power for the simple fact that they are self-serving and the temptation to abuse even basic laws/rules is too great. The point is that the majority of my previous and so far similarly ignored worries reveal the same patterns.

I can even use a phrase modus operandi (m.o.) that police use to describe a criminal’s characteristic way of committing a crime, but for your case, as your colleagues’, now applying its customized version (p.j.m.o.) to depict typical manners how some of our judges nominated by politicians, or more directly, politicians’ judges (p.j.) commit very serious judicial crimes by rendering partial decisions. Let’s forget now about my previously presented concerns as we deal today with your latest letter sent 15 minutes before closing your institution at 4:30pm.

The most interesting is that your communication perfectly reflects this p.j.m.o. described above. It is simply exposed by the dynamics of what is going on at the present time, rather than the specific details per se that you provide in your today’s letter. Your email cancels the arrangement made four days earlier and is sent today at the last moment at 4:15 pm - just before tomorrow’s morning court session in a room RC-18.

This peculiarly delivered and formulated response terminating my recent legitimate motion should be correlated with your total ignoring my previous motions and letters of December 2014/January 2015 concerning the same case. Also very vibrant now is your latest order of treating as confidential up to the trial’s day the name of a judge servicing the room RC-18. I am not sure if your statement “ The decision rendered on February 13, 2015 by the Honourable Mark Schrager is final ” is legally valid as reflecting more of your probably less controlled emotions from the end of today’s work.

In my limited knowledge (or in its total mix- up) I assume about the possibility of asking 3 judges to revise his verdict. However, the best way will be deciding about it today in the room RC-18 at 9:30 am as it was planned since 4 days ago up to the last 75 minutes of the court’s working time. Please, take also into account that my motion requesting cancellation of the decision was issued two days before the Hon. M.S.’s announcement of 13.02.15 and your receptionist was instructed to block my appeal on 11.02.15 after reading it – a similar situation occurred 11 days ago.

Also questionable is McGill legal representation. Let’s assume that today’s judge in room RC-18 will be able to act accordingly and decide about those important legal matters. So, please resume my today’s hearing and I am coming today at 9:30 am to the room RC-18. Regards [signature] Mr.

Poplawski simply will not accept what is an elementary and irrefutable characteristic of the law of civil procedure in this jurisdiction: apart from a handful of well-circumscribed statutory exceptions, the overriding rule is that three judges of the Court of Appeal do not have jurisdiction to review judgments rendered by one of their colleagues sitting as a motions judge. [11] [ 17 ] Since the judgment of September 17, 2014 quoted above in paragraph [14], Mr. Poplawski has filed no fewer than 16 proceedings, which he styled as follows (the wording and spelling are his own):

― Applicant’s Request for Permission to Appeal Dismissed Motion for Recusation issued by the same judge on 03.12.2014; ― Applicant’s Request for Permission to Appeal Decision on Amended Motion in Revocation of Judgment (no.#15); ― ANEX to Applicant’s Request for Permission to Appeal Dismissed Motion for Recusation issued by the same judge on 03.12.2014; ― Request to the Hon.

Nicole Douval Hesler supervising the Quebec Court of Appeal for admitting presented today motion of February 5. 2014 that was not accepted by the reception clerk; ― Motion to nil/dismiss the judgment of 28.01.2015 that states “ two motions will be continued before the undersigned to February 10, 2015 ” as biased and violating legal C.p.c. rules but also Charter rights for fair trials – concerning the ‘ Applicant’s Request for Permission to Appeal Dismissed Motion for recusation issued by the same judge on 03.12.2014 and the Applicant’s Request for Permission to Appeal Decision on Amended Motion in Revocation of Judgment (no.#15) ; ― Motion to null/dismiss as ever existent the hearing of 10.02.2015 as disfigured by the impartial judge Hon.

Mark Schrager who in this way maximally limited guaranteed rights by the Canadian/Quebec Charters of HRF for fair trials what is explained with details in a presented below letter to the Chief Justice of the QCOA; ― AMANDED MOTION IN REVOCATION OF JUDGEMENT OF FEBRUARY 13, 2014; ― Request to the Hon. Nicole Douval Hesler supervising the Quebec Court of Appeal for: 1. admitting a corrected enclosed motion in revocation of 26.02.15 with only a few typos that were noticed on the same day of its submission on 27.02.15; 2. rescheduling to hear a motion of 11.02.15 that was blocked illegally on 16.02.15 by the Hon.

N.D.H. – without providing legal justification for this action; ― AMANDED MOTION IN REVOCATION OF JUDGEMENT OF FEBRUARY 13, 2014; ― AMENDED MOTION IN REVOCATION OF JUDGEMENT OF FEBRUARY 13, 2014; ― REQUEST CONCERNING QUESTIONABLY RENDERED DECISION OF 03.06.2015 ― AMANDED MOTION IN REVOCATION OF JUDGEMENT OF FEBRUARY 13, 2014; ― MOTION TO RETRACT, ANNUL, VOID, AND REMOVE THE JUDGEMENT OF JUNE 3rd, 2015; ― Amended Motion to retract, annul, void, and remove the judgement of June 3 rd , 2015; ― MOTION TO RETRACT, ANNUL, VOID, AND REMOVE THE JUDGEMENT SEPTEMBER 28, 2015; ― Request for Permission to Appeal Decision Rejecting Request for Recusation of the Hon.

Ann-Marie Jones – President of HRT; ― MOTION IN REVOCATION OF JUDGEMENT OF NOVEMBER 10, 2015. [ 18 ] A review of Mr. Poplawski’s pleadings shows that he has an unremitting propensity to reiterate and amplify the same grievances against judicial decisions, the judicial system, the Chief Justice of Quebec, members of the Court, the Court’s personnel in the Registry and opposing counsel. He systematically asks the Court to revoke or revise all adverse judgments, as is once more made apparent by his latest filing.

On November 24, he filed yet another motion for revocation of a judgment refusing to grant leave to appeal from a judgment of the President of the Human Rights Tribunal who had refused to recuse herself at Mr. Poplawski’s request. [12] [ 19 ] The claims set forth by Mr. Poplawski in his written submissions are unsustainable and for the most part unintelligible, confused, and legally incongruous. In reality, most of his grievances are directed against the manner in which appellate procedure works under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules .

His refusal to “play by the rules” has led him to challenge the authority of the Court and to do so relentlessly. [ 20 ] In light of the applicable legal principles [13] , and given Mr. Poplawski’s persistent pattern of behaviour in the Court of Appeal, the Court cannot but conclude that appropriate measures are warranted to contain his consistently disruptive conduct as a self-represented litigant. [14] The order under

section 95 of the Rules will extend to any proceeding of any nature involving any opposing parties or their counsel, and which Mr. Poplawski purports to initiate or to pursue in the Court of Appeal. It will also extend to the correspondence which Mr. Poplawski addresses to the Court’s members, personnel and Registry. All proceedings emanating from Mr. Poplawski, and all communications which he wishes to have with the Court, its judges or its personnel will be subject to a prior vetting and authorization by the judge or judges designated by the Chief Justice of the Court.

The objective here is to provide an orderly framework within which Mr. Poplawski will be able to submit legitimate claims in a reasonable manner and in conformity with the relevant rules in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules . [ 21 ] One final point is worth mentioning.

This case is most assuredly one that falls well beyond the threshold for declaring a self- represented party a quarrelsome litigant and for imposing upon that party appropriate procedural restraints. [ 22 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] DECLARES that Slawomir Poplawski is a quarrelsome 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 or not in the style of cause of these proceedings;

[ 24 ] DISMISSES the motions in files no. 500-09-023008-121, 500-09-023034-127, 500-09-023074-123, 500-09-023247-133, 500- 09-023318-132, 500-09-024100-133, 500-09-024908-147, 500-09-024909-145 and 500-09-025666-157; [ 25 ] PROHIBITS Slawomir Poplawski from filing any proceeding of any nature whatsoever with the Court Registry against any party identified or not in the style of cause and against any counsel in any pending or future file, without having first obtained, by way of a motion that is in conformity with all of the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Court of Appeal of Québec in Civil Matters , the authorization of the Chief Justice or of a judge the Chief Justice designates for this purpose; [ 26 ] ORDERS the Court Registry to refuse to accept any proceeding from or in the name of Slawomir Poplawski for production that has not been previously authorized in accordance with the terms of this judgment, and to return the same to him forthwith; [ 27 ] DIRECTS the Court Registry not to distribute any correspondence or emails from Slawomir Poplawski 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; [ 28 ] PROHIBITS Slawomir Poplawski from communicating directly or indirectly with the Chief Justice, the judges of this Court, the personnel of the Court Registry and any other court personnel. [ 29 ] ORDERS Slawomir Poplawski to communicate any legitimate correspondence (namely correspondence pertaining to a matter already authorized by the Chief Justice or a judge designated by the Chief Justice for this purpose) only through the email address of the Court ( courdappel@justice.gouv.qc.ca ) or by fax (514-864-7270) or in person.

YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. DOMINIQUE BÉLANGER, J.A. Mr. Slawomir Poplawski In person Date of hearing: November 27, 2015

SCHEDULE I LIST OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND CORRESPONDENCE FILED BY MR.

SLAWOMIR POPLAWSKI AT THE COURT OF APPEAL OF QUEBEC FILE NUMBER DATE OF FILING PROCEEDINGS AND CORRESPONDENCE 1 500-09- 023008-121 2012-09-28 Motion for Leave to Appeal the judgment of the Honourable Jean-François De Grandpré of the Superior Court rendered on August 29, 2012. 2 500-09- 023034-127 2012-10-12 Motion for Leave to Appeal the judgment of the Honourable Sophie Picard of the Superior Court rendered on September 12, 2012. 3 500-09- 023074-123 2012-10-29 Motion for Leave to Appeal the judgment of the Honourable Sophie Picard of the Superior Court rendered on September 28, 2012. 4 500-09- 023074-123 2012-12-14 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler and the Honourable Yves-Marie Morissette dated December 14, 2012 concerning the adjournment of the Motion for Leave to Appeal. 5 500-09- 023247-133 2013-01-04 Motion for Leave to Appeal after the expiry of the term of the judgment of the Honourable Sophie Picard of the Superior Court rendered on July 5, 2012 and rectified on September 12, 2012. 6 500-09- 023247-133 2013-01-18 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler and the Honourable François Doyon dated January 17, 2013 concerning the adjournment of the Motion for Leave to Appeal after the expiry of the tercarrém . 7 500-09- 023247-133 2013-01-29 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated January 29, 2013.

8 500-09- 023247-133 2013-02-05 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated February 5, 2013. 9 500-09- 023247-133 2013-02-06 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated February 6, 2013. 10 500-09- 023247-133 2013-02-21 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated February 21, 2013. 11 500-09- 023247-133 2013-03-07 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated March 7, 2013. 12 500-09- 023247-133 2013-03-08 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated March 8, 2013. 13 500-09- 023247-133 2013-04-04 and 2013- 04-05 Letters sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler and the Honourable Yves-Marie Morissette dated April 4 and 5, 2013 requesting the recusation of the Honourable Yves-Marie Morissette and to reschedule the hearing of April 8, 2013. 14 500-09- 023247-133 2013-04-08 Motion for Recusation of Justice Yves-Marie Morissette, J.C.A. 15 500-09- 023247-133 2013-04-12 Request to the Chief Justice, Hon.

Nicole Duval Hesler concerning The RECUSATION of Justice Yves-Marie Morissette, J.C.A. 16 500-09- 023247-133 2013-05-08 Motion and Memorandum for lawful & ethical treatment of my court cases in the Superior Court, HRT and the Court of Appeal by their presidents and subordinate representatives 17 500-09- 023247-133 500-09- 023318-132 2013-06-12 Answering a letter of Hon.

Nicole Duval Hesler addressing a “ Motion and Memorandum for lawful & ethical treatment of my court cases in the Superior Court, HRT and the Court of Appeal by their presidents and subordinate representatives” that was presented to her and all of you on May 8, 2013 18 500-09- 023247-133 500-09- 023318-132 2013-06-21 Letter sent to the Court dated June 20, 2013. 19 500-09- 023318-132 2013-02-11 Motion for Leave to Appeal the judgment of the Honourable Michèle Pauzé of the Human Rights Tribunal rendered on January 7, 2013. 20 —- 2013-06-03 Letter sent to the Court dated June 1, 2013 concerning the “ Questionably acting lawyers/judges ”. 21 —- 2013-12-12 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated December 12, 2013 concerning the treatment of Mr.

Poplawski’s files at the Superior Court. 22 —- 2013-12-16 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated December 16, 2013 concerning the access to Mr. Poplawski’s files at the Superior Court. 23 —- 2013-12-27 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated December 27, 2013 concerning the access to Mr.

Poplawski’s files at the Superior Court. 24 500-09- 024100-133 2013-12-19 Motion for Leave to Appeal the judgment of the Honourable Hélène Lebel of the Superior Court rendered on November 19, 2013 25 500-09- 024100-133 2014-03-03 and 2014-03-06 Response to a questionable decision of the Chief Judge of 16/02/14 with individually presented requests for governmental / judicial help in postponing the hearing of 13/03/14 and removal of this judge from the present position 26 500-09- 024100-133 2014-03-13 Motion to suspend and postpone the hearing of 13/03/14 ordered by the Hon.

Nicole Duval Hesler with not presented argumentation and not provided time for the Applicant

27 500-09- 024100-133 2014-11-04 and 2014-11-06 Questionable decision 2014 QCCA 1695 (Poplawski c. McGill University) with requested annulling validity of this judgment after procedural transgressions and manipulative elimination of the key facts in the rendered verdict, and exposing untrue assertions 28 —- 2014-03-10 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated March 6, 2014. Subject: Shall this society continue to pay about $300 000/year salaries for questionably qualified/acting people like the Hon.

Hesler in the most corrupted province what express this motto: “A fish rots from the head down” meaning that when an organization or state fails, it is the leadership that is the root cause. 29 —- 2014-03-13 Letter sent to the Court dated March 12, 2014. 30 500-17- 079672-138 2014-09-10 at the Court of Appeal 2014-09-04 at the Superior Court Inscription in Appeal of the judgment of the Honourable Robert Mongeon of the Superior Court rendered on August 5, 2014. 31 500-17- 079672-138 2014-12-06 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated December 6, 2014. 32 —- 2014-12-02 Letter sent to the Court dated December 2, 2014. 33 —- 2015-02-10 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated February 9, 2015.

Subject: The questionable actions of chief justices nominated by politicians 34 500-09- 024908-147 2014-12-17 Applicant’s Request for Permission to Appeal Dismissed Motion for Recusation issued by the same judge on 03.12.2014 35 500-09- 024909-145 2014-12-17 Applicant’s Request for Permission to Appeal Decision on Amended Motion in Revocation of Judgment 36 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2014-12-30 ANEX to Applicant’s Request for Permission to Appeal Dismissed Motion for Recusation issued by the same judge on 03.12.2014 37 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-01-09 Letter sent to the Court dated January 8, 2015. 38 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-01-13 Letter sent to the Court dated January 13, 2015. 39 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-01-22 Letter sent to the Court dated January 22, 2015. 40 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-02-06 Request to the Hon.

Nicole Douval Hesler supervising the Quebec Court of Appeal for admitting presented today motion of February 5, 2014 that was not accepted by the reception clerk

41 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-02-06 Motion to nil/dismiss the judgment of 28.01.2015 that states “two motions will be continued before the undersigned to February 10, 2015” as biased and violating legal C.p.c. rules but also Charter rights for fair trials – concerning the “Applicant’s Request for Permission to Appeal Dismissed Motion for recusation issued by the same judge on 03.12.2014 and the Applicant’s Request for Permission to Appeal Decision on Amended Motion in Revocation of Judgment 42 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-02-12 Motion to null/dismiss as ever existent the hearing of 10.02.2015 as disfigured by the impartial judge Hon.

Mark Schrager who in this way maximally limited guaranteed rights by the Canadian/Quebec Charters of HRF for fair trials what is explained with details in a presented below letter to the Chief Justice of the QCOA 43 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-02-17 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated February 16, 2015. 44 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-02-27 Amanded Motion in Revocation of judgment of February 13, 2014 45 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-03-02 Request to the Hon.

Nicole Duval Hesler supervising the Quebec Court of Appeal dated February 27, 2015 46 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-04-24 Amanded Motion in revocation of Judgment of February 13, 2014 47 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-04-28 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated April 28, 2015. 48 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-04-29 Amended Motion in revocation of Judgment of February 13, 2014 49 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-06-05 Request concerning questionably rendered decision of 03.06.2015 for amanded motion in revocation of judgment of February 13, 2014 50 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-06-18 Motion to retract, annul, void, and remove the judgment of June 3 rd , 2015 51 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-07-03 Amended Motion to retract, annul, void, and remove the judgment of June 3 rd , 2015 52 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-07-03 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated July 3, 2015.

53 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-09-18 Letter sent to the Court dated September 18, 2015. 54 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-09-24 Letter sent to the Court dated September 24, 2015. 55 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-10-07 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated October 7, 2015. 56 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-10-09 Motion to retract, annul, void, and remove the judgment of September 28 th , 2015 57 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-10-15 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated October 15, 2015. 58 500-09- 024908-147 500-09- 024909-145 2015-10-26 Letter sent to the Court dated October 26, 2015. 59 500-09- 025666-157 2015-10-20 Request for permission to appeal decision rejecting request for recusation of the Hon.

Ann-Marie Jones 60 500-09- 025666-157 2015-11-24 Motion in revocation of judgment of November 10, 2015 61 500-09- 025666-157 2015-10-28 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated October 27, 2015. 62 —- 2015-09-28 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated September 28, 2015. 63 —- 2015-11-04 Letter sent to the Honourable Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler dated November 3, 2015. […] 5. In the Applicant’s motion should be also considered questionable key role of the Hon.

Nicole Duval Hesler supervising all QCA judges who openly manifests unprecedented disregard for basic legal rules by exercising her judicial rights in an excessive and unreasonable manners when trying to destroy the weakest parties in some court cases for not revealing reasons (Exh. 3-5) which contradicts the requirements for maintaining good faith in the all judicial actions (art. 7 qcc); 6. The same QCA’s judges also ‘learn’ from the Hon.

Hesler’s extreme eagerness in manifesting full legislative support for the strongest politicans as e.g. recently her court almost immediately introduced before Christmas 2014 ( 2014 QCCA 2365 ) so needed five months earlier for Harper’s administration ‘better’

interpretation of our 1867 Constitution that previously blocked the Hon. R.M. Mainville (among others) nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada – only after his QCA’s ‘judicial Christmas gift’ the Supreme Court had to approve consistently in April, 2015 (‘judicial Easter Bunny Gift’) the R.M. Mainville’s previous promotion to the QCA and five weeks later I was ‘honoured’ to have this strongly connected with our muddy politics judge hearing my case; […] 8. The judicial institutions have thus become self-servicing, ornamental and unwilling to expose internal ‘judicial dirt’.

Ordinary staff turn their focus to covering up problems created by judges, as the Applicant experienced and described in ( Exh. 2-4 ); 9. The Applicant’s situation is unusual, as his concern for social justice in the workplace targeted many aspects, inducing multidimensional social injustice in globalizing democracies; driven by forces and motives that contradict traditional humanistic values; 10. This explains the extreme ferocity with which the Applicant was and still is being attacked by those big institutions, which focus

more on politics than their noble social functions. Amongst these degenerated institutions, the applicant lists: his McGill employer, his PSAC union and the courts, whose judges are apparently not ashamed to commit judicial crimes; […]