|
Presentation - Court-System Embarrassing Cases. Jordan v. Keane
In Jordan v. Keane (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considered an RTA s.210 appeal hearing, here where the appeal was initiated by a self-presenting landlord - although neither the LTB nor the tenant attended as the matter was not perfected. The LL did appear, but rather than dismissing the appeal the court urged the appellant to seek out several free legal advice sources and set a case conference at which all parties should attend. The case is yet another example of the difficulty that the court's are have servicing Ontarians.
. Sieluzyck v.Ontario
In Sieluzyck v.Ontario (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considered a court-system embarrassing case where seven separate party's counsel appeared to dispute a multi-respondent self-presenter applicant HRTO JR time extension proceeding.
Here the court illustrates absurdities that can arise due to (IMHO) the institutional failure to recognize the over-complication of our legal system, and how it is largely divorced from any realistic concept of citizen-access:[1] In my endorsement dated June 13, 2024, I urged Mr. Sieluzycki to speak to a lawyer or a legal clinic about this application for judicial review of multiple administrative tribunal decisions.
[2] In that endorsement, I also scheduled a motion in writing for Mr. Sieluzycki to seek an extension of time to bring this proceeding under s. 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c J.1. I waived all procedural technicalities to allow Mr. Sieluzycki to simply explain to the court why his application: (a) has merit; and (b) why there is no prejudice to the respondents due to Mr. Sieluzycki’s delay in commencing this proceeding. I also explained the necessity for Mr. Sieluzycki to satisfy the court of these two issues as required by s. 5 (2) of the statute.
[3] Since the release of my decision, the Human Rights Tribunal has rendered a decision on Mr. Sieluzycki’s 2023 application. It ruled that the application was brought too late and that, in any event, Mr. Sieluzycki did not set out a claim of discrimination on a prohibited ground as against the Province. Mr. Sieluzycki has sought reconsideration of the dismissal of this claim.
[4] Mr. Sieluzycki delivered a Statement dated July 31, 2024 to support his request to extend the time to bring this proceeding. I have received responses on behalf of Posner Metals Limited, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the Ministry of Public and Business Services Delivery, and the Director of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.
[5] In his Statement, Mr. Sieluzycki repeats the events regarding the failed transaction to sell his car in 2019 that is properly the subject of his Small Claims Court proceedings. When the car sale transaction failed, Mr. Sieluzycki called the police. They declined to become involved in the civil issues between Mr. Sieluzycki and his car buyer. Mr. Sieluzycki responded with application for orders against the police, information claims, human rights claims, and a possible claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. He seeks judicial review ion this proceeding from orders of the foregoing bodies denying him the relief that he sought.
[6] Mr. Sieluzycki says that his claims in this proceeding, as detailed extensively in my prior endorsement, all stem from his claim that the respondents violated his rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as referenced in the preamble to Ontario’s Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c.H.19.
[7] Mr. Sieluzycki submits that in the decisions to which he objects, the respondents:... did cause prejudice to the Applicant by attacking the honor and reputation of the Applicant after subjecting the Applicant to the reprisal in response to the Applicant’s complaints about these human rights abuses. [8] In particular, Mr. Sieluzycki refers to articles 17 and 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These articles provide:17 (1)Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2)No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. [9] Canada is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It can have normative value in the interpretation of the Charter of Rights and human rights legislation. But, the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the preamble to the Human Rights Code does not incorporate all of its provisions into the law of Ontario. Rather, the Human Rights Code represents Ontario’s implementation of the principles underlying and recited in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
[10] Had Mr. Sieluzycki obtained legal advice, he would have been told that there he had no basis to review administrative decisions based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Neither did any of the decisions which Mr. Sieluzycki seeks to review affect his property rights, honour, or reputation. His rights in his car are squarely before the Small Claims Court. So too are his claims for any emotional distress that he may have suffered by the wrongdoing that he alleges in that action. I do not know if there were creditors with enforceable liens on his car. I do not know if Mr. Sieluzycki brought his lawsuit in the Small Claims Court in time. So I am not saying that Mr. Sieluzycki is necessarily going to succeed in his lawsuit. But the law of Ontario recognizes and allows vindication and realization of Mr. Sieluzycki’s property rights such as they were in 2019 when he purported to sell his car.
[11] There is no merit in any of Mr. Sieluzycki’s complaints about the decisions of the various respondent tribunals rejecting his claims. None of the proceedings represented a viable way for Mr. Sieluzycki to vindicate his legal rights in relation to the sale of his car. Mr. Sieluzycki provides no basis on which to conclude that judicial review conducted in accordance with Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), has any realistic chance of success.
[12] Moreover, Mr. Sieluzycki failed to provide any basis to find that the merits of his proposed proceeding ought to outweigh the prejudice of delay. Five years have passed since the car sale and the initial Human Rights Tribunal decision. Case law points to the need for finality in government decision-making. Mr. Sieluzycki did not prove that “no prejudice or hardship will result” to the respondents due to his delays.
[13] The complaint against the Uninsured Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund is premature as no decision has yet to be rendered. Moreover, there was no car accident allowing a claim for Statutory Accident Benefits. Mr. Sieluzycki was also insured at the time. There is no hint of a reason for the Uninsured Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund to be involved in this proceeding. Similarly, the application as against the 2023 Human Rights complaint predates the recent decision dismissing that complaint. The reconsideration decision is not yet made. I dismiss this proceeding in respect of those claims as premature.
[14] I therefore dismiss this proceeding in full.
[15] Mr. Sieluzycki remains at liberty to bring new proceedings if the Human Rights Tribunal dismisses the reconsideration request and Mr. Sieluzycki believes he has viable grounds for judicial review.
[16] Mr. Sieluzycki could not state any valid ground for relief in this motion. He brings repeated claims for the same underlying transaction and he has brought claims with no apparent merit on their faces. I am concerned that his actions in this proceeding have been frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under section 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c A.6.
[17] I am therefore considering ordering under that section that Mr. Sieluzycki’s fee waiver be cancelled and ordering that he may not make any further requests for a fee waiver with respect to this or any related proceeding without permission obtained in advance from a judge.
[18] Prior to making an order restricting fee waivers, I invite Mr. Mr. Sieluzycki to send written submissions by September 30, 2024 as to why he should not be required to obtain permission from a judge before he obtains any future fee waivers under the Administration of Justice Act.
[19] Submissions shall be sent to the registrar and also to my Judicial Assistant at therese.navrotski@ontario.ca.
[20] Until Mr. Sieluzycki’s entitlement to future Fee Waivers is resolved, I direct the Registrar to defer granting any new Fee Waivers that may be requested by Mr. Sieluzycki in the interim.
[21] Finally, if any of the respondents wish to seek indemnification for their costs of this proceeding, they may send Mr. Sieluzycki and me no more than three pages of written submissions and a costs outline by September 15, 2024. If any respondent asks for some portion of its costs to be paid by Mr. Sieluzycki, he may deliver written submissions by no later than September 30, 2024 responding to the respondents’ request(s) that he pay their costs. Costs submissions shall be sent to the registrar and also to my Judicial Assistant at therese.navrotski@ontario.ca.
|
