ANTHONY HICKS Applicant v. BELL CANADA MEDIA, 2022 FC 67

Date: 20220121 Docket: T-1359-21 Citation: 2022 FC 67 Ottawa, Ontario, January 21, 2022 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy BETWEEN: ANTHONY HICKS Applicant and BELL CANADA MEDIA and COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES Respondents ORDER AND REASONS UPON A MOTION made pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106 ), by the Plaintiff, Mr. Anthony Hicks; UPON said motion seeking for the Court to strike the decision of Prothonotary Kevin R.

Aalto dismissing the application for judicial review, issued on September 3, 2022; Considering various other remedies being sought in the motion to strike the decision of Prothonotary Aalto: − The Court to order an " “investigation pursuant to

section 11. Investigation and Resolution of Commission for Complaints for Telecom- Television Services Inc.”; " " − " " “if an investigation is not possible by the Federal Court of Canada that the complaint be directed to the proper contact pursuant to

section 6.9 of the Investigation and Resolution for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services Inc”; " " − " " “a Judicial Inquiry into my allegations”; " " − " " “Any remedy the Court should deem fit”; " AND UPON representations made on behalf of the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services, on January 4, 2022, in response to the Applicant’s motion. This motion is in a form not recognized by this Court.

The Applicant’s record is constituted of 152 pages comprising numerous sections of the Federal Court Act and the Federal Courts Rules , case law without any explanation as to its relevance and some documentation relating to the " “transport portfolio” " . The actual submissions refer, inter alia , to the Department of Justice and the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario being criminal organizations, CNN and Bell Media stalking the Applicant and harassing him, " “Bill 21” " , the Minister and Deputy Minister of Transport Québec and various files in this Court involving the Applicant.

One surmises that the Applicant wishes for his application for judicial review to proceed in spite of it having been stricken through an order of Prothonotary Aalto, on December 10, 2021. Prothonotary Aalto noted that the motion to strike the judicial review application, moved by Bell Canada Media, was not defended adequately by the Applicant in his letter which said " “little other than the motion should be dismissed” " (Order of December 10, 2021, p. 2). This is indeed the extent of the argument offered on this motion moved by the Applicant.

The order of December 10 notes further that " “(t)he Applicant appears not to know the process which he commenced” " , in spite of the fact that he brought some twelve proceedings before this Court alone. Thus, as indicated hereinabove the Applicant seeks that the Order of Prothonotary Aalto be struck. The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services is right that a motion to strike is not the proper proceeding to challenge a decision by a Prothonotary. I also agree that the other reliefs are not appropriate as they cannot be ordered by our Court.

At any rate, there is a complete lack of submissions, let alone cogent submissions, in support of the reliefs sought which could have been considered any further. ORDER in T1359-21 AS A RESULT, THIS COURT ORDERS :

1 . The motion, brought by the Applicant for the purpose of striking the decision of Prothonotary Aalto of December 10, 2021, is dismissed. 2 . To the extent the motion seeks other remedies, it is equally dismissed. No one sought their costs and there will not be an order as to costs. “Yvan Roy” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1359-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: ANTHONY HICKS v. BELL CANADA MEDIA and COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: ROY J.

DATED: JANUARY 21, 2022 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY : Anthony Hicks For The Applicant (SELF-REPRESENTED) James S. S. Holtom For The Respondent BELL CANADA MEDIA Christian Breukelman COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES SOLICITORS OF RECORD : McCarthy Tetrault Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent BELL CANADA MEDIA Stieber Berlach LLP Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES