This week’s guest blog is written by Chantal McCollum. Chantal began her LLB at Windsor Law, and completed it at the University of Ottawa. She is now articling. Chantal was an SRL before she came to law school.
Bringing a Claim to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is a Kafkaesque Experience
Most cases diverted to summary hearing process at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario are dismissed – and most of these cases involve applicants without legal representation.
While I was a third-year law student, I assisted a friend in filing an application with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO). After receiving some direction from a Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) agent, and legal counsel, we decided to go ahead and file an application, in my friend’s name. Given that the filing deadline was near, the HRLSC was quite helpful in providing some timely assistance.
Summary hearing process
After filling, we received notice from the HRTO that the file had been directed to a summary hearing process. The summary hearing, under Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, is used to determine:
- Whether, assuming all of the allegations are true, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a [Ontario Human Rights] Code violation; and/or,
- Whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated by the respondent(s). The applicant has to show that he or she can make a link between the event that led to the Application and the alleged ground(s) of discrimination.
This process may be initiated by either the HRTO or at the request of the respondent. In our case, the respondent was represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and the summary hearing process was initiated by the HRTO.
A “reasonable prospect of success”
The case of Dabic v. Windsor Police Service (2010 HRTO 1994) sets out the legal test for “reasonable prospect of success” used at the summary hearing stage.
I reviewed HRTO cases which cited Dabic over a period of six months, beginning October 2017 and ending April 2018. I found that approximately 23 summary hearings took place at the HRTO. Of these cases, 19 involved SRLs or applicants who were represented by someone who likely did not have legal training, such as a family member or a litigation guardian. 18 of the 23 cases were eventually dismissed.
This means that during those 6 months, the HRTO dismissed approximately 78% of cases that were diverted to the summary hearing stage. Of the dismissed cases, nearly all of them involved SRLs or applicants who were represented by someone who likely did not have legal training.
Our chances of success – which would mean defeating the application for a summary judgment – did not look good.
Can I get some help representing my friend?
As a law student, I had more legal knowledge than my friend, who had no legal training. So, my friend asked if I could act as his representative at the summary hearing. I was added as the representative on his file.
I prepared myself as well as I could from my own research for the summary hearing, but was hoping that I could get a bit of direction from more experienced legal counsel at the HRLSC, to ensure that I did not miss any potential arguments.
When I phoned the HRLSC to ask to schedule some time for a conversation over the phone with counsel, an agent told me that their policy was that once applicants have added a representative to their file, they are no longer able to receive advice from the HRLSC, because they are no longer considered self-represented.
This policy means that it doesn’t matter whether your representative is your neighbour, who files human rights applications in their spare time, a law student, or an experienced lawyer – all representation is equal. And, even though as a law student I would in theory take up far less time with counsel than an unrepresented person, the HRLSC was simply unable to help me with the summary hearing.
The agent’s response to me was to direct me to review information on the HRTO website to understand what was involved in a summary hearing. Given that I had told her I was a law student and was only looking for some brief direction, surely she must have understood that I already had some idea about how the process operated, but had some further questions? I felt as if this advice was not only patronizing, but that I was also being told to “go fly a kite”.
I pointed out to the agent that if the applicant hadn’t added me as their representative until later on in the process, he would have been able to receive legal advice from experienced HRLSC counsel prior to the hearing. I also said that few people could afford to hire a lawyer for full representation and that the HRLSC was not being very helpful. These arguments did not change the agent’s mind – she was not able to permit me to schedule a short meeting with counsel.
The HRLSC was comfortable with telling my friend and I that we should file an application – but after that, since all legal representation is considered to be equal in the eyes of the HRLSC, I was being thrown into the deep end and told to swim.
SRLs continually have these Kafkaesque experiences with the legal system. Law students trying to help SRLs are having similar experiences, too.
…
Find practical guides and information resources for those representing themselves in court under the SRL Resources tab at the top of this page. See here for our Directory of Professionals Assisting SRLs (which lists lawyers and other legals pros from across Canada who provide unbundled or other lower cost legal services). Explore our website for further research, resources, information, blogs, and podcasts that may be useful or interesting to self-represented litigants, and those invested in access to justice.
My submission for your blog is:
“Reasonable grounds to believe”
I also believe that the appropriate test would be reasonable grounds to believe. This is the test also used at the first step under the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has elevated the test. In the summary hearing process, it regularly ask evidence from the applicant even before allowing for the disclosure procedure and dismisses the application by saying that the applicant has no evidence to prove discrimination. This is despite the recognition that in discrimination cases the evidence is commonly in the respondent’s possession, and that based on the respondents’ evidence applicants have to prove discrimination. In addition, there are decisions from the supreme court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal and Ontario Court of Appeal suggesting that the applicant’s need not to adduce evidence. However, it is very difficult for the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, which is represented predominantly by mainstream people, to allow marginalized people enjoy such a less threshold test and to see that their fellow mainstream people, the respondents, are required to meet a higher threshold. So, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal gradually elevated the test the applicants have to meet and gradually decreased the burden that the respondents have to meet. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal does not function according to rule of law principles. The adjudicators at Ontario Human Rights Tribunal make decisions based on their personal denials, views and preference rather than applying the relevant law to the available facts.
Thanks Alex and Koba. I agree — there are serious issues with respect to natural justice and procedural fairness here. The HRTO is quick to conclude that Applicants are on a “fishing expedition”, despite Applicants not having full disclosure and not knowing the case to meet. Even in our case, we had sought out evidence to know, almost to an absolute certainty, that a prima facie case of discrimination was met (for those here not familiar with the term, prima facie, it means accepted until proven otherwise). Yet, the Respondent did not even have to make answer. This is despite the fact that even HRTO’s own case law and binding law at courts above concludes, as you said Koba, that in discrimination cases the evidence is commonly in the respondent’s possession — which was an argument I raised almost immediately at the summary hearing.
Interesting. I have always been able to defeat a Summary showboat Hearing with a Form 11. My current matter not so much. I have a Preliminary/Summary Hearing sounds like a party.
Don’t get too happy Craig. They are more adept at the bogus at that place now than they were before. They tried to subject me to a bogus Summary Hearing without having the other party respond so, I just withdrew the application and went to court and sued the wretched respondent who sniffed my butt (and charged right there when I stopped suddenly), after his group at my workplace (their place of residence) often spoke about black people there being smelly. COVID has really stymied my efforts to proceed with my case because I cannot dare COVID because of underlying condition(s). I am worried. I just cannot understand how so many confused persons are in control at these tribunals. We are in trouble in this country
Thanks for the info. Applied to OHRT, representing myself and legal has helped alot, so knowing I lose their help if I name a representative is beneficial. I am challenging municipal tax policy and next challenging Federal CPP policy as contributing to a pattern of systemic poverty due to existing policy. Proposing policy be updated to protect disabled people from the discrimination I experienced. I may loose my house if I don’t win.
Please let me know who can help me file my leave for appeal to the supreme court of CANADA.
Is your case civil or criminal?
I have to do that too. Check out pro bono Ontario, a lawyer will review your claim to assess merits. Try and get legal representation is the outcome is very important to you, that’s the advice on SCC website, good luck!
So then who can assist the self litigants?
we are really on our own. I need a really good lawyer to handle dna testing done on myself and my daughter I need someone able to deal with the lab, make sure there is a chain of custody, produces, the entire file not just a report, and someone who knows if something is missing, Ie someone who handles dna testing files often, and trusts only him or her self to ensure honesty and accuracy, I also need hla testing run, it was originally run in 1994, and no dna testing back then is the same as now,, but the hla IS THE SAME, and can be compared, so far it is stated that the numbers from my sample were transposed and claimed to be my daughters. I think it would be helpful for the chain of custody,, if this person able to handle this were in BC. since that is where we are. Anyone know anyone????
Do not waste your time or money. In the last 5000 leave to appeal applications, 28% of those being from SRLs, one was granted to an SRL. That was 5 years ago and you are not that person. Let it go, unless you think you have a one-in-one thousand case (hint: you don’t) or you get a lawyer.
You’re right, the odds of a SRL being given leave to appeal at the Supreme Court is the same chance as one has at winning the lotto. I know,as I filed an unambiguous fraud and perjury case where the defendant pleaded the equivalent of the U.S.A. 5th amendment
i.e. s 13 of The Charter of rights.
The great success of Pintea v. Johns was achieved by a pro bono lawyer to a SRL. But For the decency and kindness of lawyer Colin Feasby poor Mr.Pintea would have been tossed into the judicial delete bin like all of us who want to believe that the system is fair and honest.
Having said all that, our government needs to replace or re-examine our system for administering justice in accordance with s 15 of our Charter of Rights. A good place to start is by rearranging the CJC. Which is nothing more than a protection agency for judges promoting more “tribalism”. Judges judging Judges, clearly does not work, Period!!!
Sandra Olson is so right, the system has gone awry and is nothing more than a side show (my words not hers). And yes Sandra, they are having a good laugh at us all!
Things must and will change, but our voices must be heard by our Justice Ministers both Provincially and Federally. Judges are not the solution, if anything they’re contributors to the problem!
In my case with the Supreme Court, the defendants asked for $800 cost but the registrar saw fit to give them over $1,200. Imagine that. Off course I had none so they got none. I am still waiting on the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) to sign the Judgement Roll despite writing to the registrar and Chief Justice more than three times asking for it. The case was in 2011 (January I think). Even the Supreme Court called them trying to get it but they would never sign it despite the lawyer from the Alberta Attorney General’s office siding with my draft when we had the meeting to settle the minutes.
Instead of making his order in court the judge wanted me to meet in private with him and counsel for the other side but I did not go. The rules say only lawyers can meet like that so I did not care for the rules to be bent apparently for me ( I had no faith in that). apparently the judge did not want to embarrass the lawyer by saying I won in open court. The Calgary Herald had published a story about the case without identifying us’ Student Wins Right to Meet with Judge in Private” and I also had previously gotten a Gag Order against the School Board and Minister. That made the lawyers afraid so they ganged up to get me declared vexatious ( after I had an accident and could not attend court for a while (There was no Long Delay). The judge just made up his own rules and his own laws and is known to be very hostile to SRLs. He even lied that the Attorney General was given notice and entitled himself to his own “facts” (not to mentioned his unfounded opinions).
this outline of how the government bodies surrounding the judicial system,, like the human rights body, like the privacy commission, and any other review bodies that you can think of,, all operate in the same manner, As well, I booked a spot to go speak to a commission about this out here in BC, I was allowed to speak, and when the report was issued, not one word of what I had said was printed. it simply acknowledged that I had spoken. This is how even when you do try to make your case to government itself, no one is interested in hearing what you have to say. There is no access. A form of bullying is to isolate you and disregard you. That is what is done regularly to the self represented. And no lawyer will take your case, They will take your money all right, but not one foot will enter any of the courts or supporting government bodies,
A troubling but honest indictment of how systems perpetuate rather than mitigate harm.
Important, in that we have more than enough evidence to show that change must come at the systemic level.
And more so, that when the system itself fails or refuses to make changes that harm not just the public, but insider morale, that the system itself is unquestionably damaging the wider social fabric with its own purposefully chosen policy and practice.
In my own lived experience, the blow that takes people down comes in the moment they face the reality that what is happening to them is NOT -as it at first seems and feels- against them personally; but is in fact happening to everyone, everywhere. That it’s business as usual.
How do you heal a rot that is all pervasive without tearing down and rebuilding from scratch?
The saving grace of accepting reality is knowing that we are by no means, suffering alone.
And if the problem holds the solution, then this one screams – ban together now or forever hold your peace.
In seeking answers to its question of guilt and innocence, the public seeks confirmation of intent.
If it is not the intention of the people who design and maintain systems as they are, then coming full circle, the facts as they stand, remain as they appear on their face, an indictment of deeply ingrained, firmly entrenched systemic abuse that sets the damming tone and standard of social morality of human existence in the 21st century.
And by far too many accounts, humanity is bleeding out.
Lets hope that this is not the message, the intentional outcome that the legal system has created for Canadians to drown in.
Yet across the board, all around us we see SOS etched in the sand and there is not a shadow of a doubt that as a country, we are desperately in need of systemic CPR.
Thanks Judy. I hope with people like you who are speaking and writing about their experiences and with the NSRLP’s work, that we are able to keep working at giving the system “CPR” together.
Thank you for sharing your experience. Very enlightening.
I am not surprised at the high rates of summary judgments against SRLs because they are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to understanding how to formulate effective legal arguments.
I am surprised and disappointed at the lack of guidance you received from HRLSC counsel prior to the hearing. I was under the impression that the HRTO is meant to protect vulnerable people. I wonder what the reasoning was when they created the policy “… all legal representation (even without legal training) is considered to be equal in the eyes of the HRLSC?”
Please consider posting again to inform us of the hearing outcome.
I only use HRLSC for Pre Mediation, 1 hour prep I’m good for a Mediation. I have my first Hearing soon tho, can’t wait, with MCCSS
In my case I was told that unless I could not read or write no legal counsel would be present for my HRTO hearing. I stated that the company will have an unfair advantage over me as their lawyer would have more experience in these issues.
I was told that if I get a lawyer my company could simply keep delaying hearings until I could not afford it anymore and therefore lose by default.
She told me that’s why it’s better to SRL rather then hire a lawyer. So much for fairness shows how badly any so called justice is not justice.
Kafkaesque experience is an understatement for what really happens at HRTO and with that HRLSC. NSRLP needs to listen to us more than you do now. You are able to sift out our emotions and get the truth and facts from what we tell you. The players in the system are more bogus, daunting and plain dangerous than the system itself regardless of its pitfalls
If NSRLP wants a front row seat of what happens in Ontario maybe I can give you a front row seat on my cases. I am set to have a preliminary/Summary Hearing at HRTO come February 26 (I think). I do not plan to go ahead. I called another recipient of Legal Aid Ontario Funds (Yep Tax payers funds) to get help asking them not to bother but guess what that “legal clinic” told me to just call them and tell not to bother and pretty much that it is a waste of their resources to assist me. I fired off a letter to the clinic director yesterday about the reckless legal advice and the demeaning treatment. I do NOT expect any reply deserving of my time
The facts of my case will astound NSRLP despite your experiences so far you have NOT seen this but let me just say, it involves a severe case of workplace harassment including sexual harassment and assault and another instance where a resident literally came up behind me, sniffed my butt, recorded my conversation with an employee who reports to me. They wanted me to evict their black neighbour whose home they claim is too stink. They are in the smell business-smelling black people. His mom then wrote to my employer telling them I am not fit for the job. Imagine I was sniffed like a dog so it is this part of the HRTO application that they (HRTO) want to silence. They previously tried to silence me regarding the workplace harassment and sexual harassment and assault etc from the “employer”. Did I mention I thought I was being assisted by HRLSC but when the summary hearing came up HRLSC disowned me and let me know I am pretty much not their client. When I survived they realised their butt was exposed so they took some crooked steps to make it look like they helped or were interested to help me. On that complaint they (HRTO) deferred it until I appeal a very funny OLRB decision (I was represented by counsel on that and I am left embarrassed for him after the OLRB behaved rotten to him) so I am doing the judicial review. That lawyer who did my OLRB case did a marvellous job but was cheated and insulted by the OLRB. I htink he is still in shock! The other crooked lawyer when caught and backed in a corner after she turned up at HRTO too, actually asked them(HRTO) to declare me vexatious after she wrote to me demanding that I withdraw my form 3 (Reply to her foolish and obvious lies in her response). They are waiting I guess to do just that but for now they will look too foolish so they have deferred until I go everywhere else . They literally told me come back in another life after I go everywhere else. In essence s. 45.1 serves to deny a person’s basic human rights protections if they dare try to exercise their legal right such as going to the OLRB to enquire whether their calling the health inspector to their workplace had a bearing on their firing. So Health and safety law says no one can retaliate against you for complaining to OHSA but human rights tribunal can retaliate by punishing you severely for doing the same thing. It is ridiculous! Did I mention they took 5 months before they issued my application to the respondents then HRLSC lied to me that that is the delay with all their cases only for me to find out that was such a lie
All of the above now led to a situation of INCONSISTENT DECISION where the OLRB told a black man ( Mr Ljuboja) they do not deal with the underlying harassment or other things that led to the OLRB reprisal complaint to them and that those things are “peripheral and irrelevant” to their hearing and he must go to either common law or HRTO to deal with the harassment and other underlying claims. Then I turn up a black woman and did just what they told Ljuboja and the HRTO is telling me the OLRB has already significantly dealt with the same underlying issues that the OLRB says it does not hear or offer remedy for. The crooked OLRB adjudicator actually tried to make comments (more like obiter to me) that could be construed to be what they say. I think they both were banking on my SRL status and conflate that with ignorant person but I turned out to be more of a handful for them including threatening to hit them with a test case (Now that is another story for legal Aid Ontario refuses to respond to me except to tell me to go to certain clinics (off course so they take me around the mulberry bush. I want a certificate to a lawyer who will take my case not to go to any rinky dinky legal clinic
If your head hurts after reading this it is a real headache and like I said,Kafkaesque experience is an understatement to describe dealing with HRLSC, HRTO or any other board or tribunal such a ministry of Labour or OLRB and you all already know about the courts in this any province (or this country for that matter). Last year or the year before when NSRLP published its “list of helping agencies” I almost screamed at you guys. I actually did a long post but deleted at the end . Maybe NSRLP will remove HRLSC from your list ( and check the others thoroughly before promoting them)
I find one common thread among all these tax payer funded legal clinics in Ontario including HRLSC: They help you get started then back out when you are in the middle of the fire and let you know you did not retain them, they are not your lawyer or they only give you summary advice and even that you should not take their advice. To me it is all one BIG SCAM!
Well said. I had one of the most horrible experiences at MOL, mind you this was in 2001 though.
Sandra, I had a lawyer represent me at a labour board hearing and that adjudicator literally insulted him by totally ignoring his submission, his cross examination of the liars, any facts we put in our application. He totally ignored and disregarded us. It was as though we did not attend.
That adjudicator does not yet know that I know he is from the same town where the person who got my job was from and is well known there and he had that guy kotched up as representative for the employer though he was not directly employed by the employer so as far as I know he did not meet the requirement to sit at the hearing table. He was allowed to go in and out as he pleased and interact with the “witnesses” who were sent out of hearing and obviously he was up to no good
They will pretend they are listening to us just like the politicians. I made submissions to the Alberta legislature in their law review twice only for them to inform me that they removed certain parts of my submission. Off course those parts point to the ills of what they claim they were reviewing. it was so fake
I do not know when all concerned will accept that the problem is not the system despite its faults BUT RATHER the crooked unfit persons being appointed to these boards, courts and tribunals. Until we gather our selves together and ensure we are counted in the appointment process and hold these unfit persons accountable to the public, absolutely NOTHING is going to change
thank you for your comments Allen, while you say It is bad actors and not the system,, I must disagree, The system allows the bad actors to act. It says nothing to protect the rights of the public, and allows motions to be passed by these bad actors that further dishonor the concept of justice, As well of course as the people in the courts, Therefore, the system is not just sitting by looking innocent, there are no innocents in what is happening, The system is conducting the whole act,, and the bad actors are are a part of a really bad play,
From personal experience of 12 years plus, and all the way to the Supreme Court. I agree with Sandra it is “the system”.
Fixers are in place all the way up the ladder for the purpose of exterminating SRL’s from their sacred and exclusive tribe, I would never have believed this until I was a victim of it. The legal system in Canada reminds me of any episode of Ray Donovan.
Lawyers feel threatened by SRL’s depleting their revenue stream and judges extra duties spawned since Pintea. The judiciary prefers dealing with lawyers who for the most part are intimidated by judges, because that’s the way the system was originally set up. The SRL is was what gave birth to the “vexatious litigant” and “abuse of process” doctrines. As time goes on and more cases by SRL’s progress and SRL’s become smarter you can bet that “vexatious” and “abuse of process” will be used more than ever before.
Sandra, if you look at the rules and principles of the system you will take a different opinion. The issue is those in charge always break the law hence they break the system and there are laws for consequences of their bad behaviour BUT again they are the ones who administer that same law so there lies the problem and that I separate from the system for their bad behaviour is the problem and that is not the system. Once I had a judge incite a lawyer to act crooked against me. I settled him with one letter to him and one to then Chief Justice plus a copy of the letter to him. He was removed off my case (the letter to me said he agreed to come off my case-very funny).
Look at this for instance Sandra. They use Security for Cost Orders to kill our cases. Every last litigant I know, even the Freemen on the land, automatically argue that such an order is unfair and would prevent them pursuing the case. That is exactly what the rule says too.Recently a lawyer told me that is “the argument”. to ward off such a motion. I almost laugh at him. So tell me why has it not warded off the numberless motions against SRLs? My experience is sometimes it works other times the judge just look at the SRL and pretty much laugh in their face and NOTHING is done to such a bad judge despite that obvious injudicious conduct.
Look at what is going on in Alberta, The Judicature Act provides for declaring certain behaviours vexatious BUT the judges do not care what that Act says and declare SRLS vexatious as a sport while ignoring the law. The appeal court judges treat it as a joke on appeal. When the government finally got some balls and try to stop them judges made their own rule of court that gives them more power to abuse vulnerable litigants where the law does not allow for that power to them. Are they that dumb or is it that they are crooked? Has anyone paid the price even though there are instance where they have even sent SRLS to jail like criminals for being “vexatious”?. It should be that the law society automatically disbars any lawyer who made those motions under those circumstances in the first place but that is not the case. So it is not the system but the people involved who allow the crookedness. I am always wary of people claiming to be changing and “modernising” the law. In days gone by judges were not allowed to make their own rules of court nor declare people vexatious. They changed and “modernised” that and now look what we have
Wow, same exact experience for myself at MOL. I was shocked at the rudeness.
Hi Steve, Recently, I filed two Application for Leave to Supreme Court of Canada. I can share the information and experience with you. I can also refer you to the resources. Much of the necessary information is available at Supreme Court of Canada website.
If I could offer any advice, it would be withdraw your applications and beg of the court that you be forgiven, so that you might at least avoid costs awarded against you.
Hello Chantal McCollum,
Thanks for writing this blog. I believe this is the first blog about the access issue in Human Rights matter. I hope, in the future, more and more people will write about the access issue in Human Rights matter.
Human Rights is considered as the fundamental right of every human being and the violation of which results in social injustice. If we have to eliminate social injustices, we have to strengthen our Human Rights system. Human Rights is not just about equal rights. It goes beyond it. For example, almost all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are derivatives of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For convenience, we have compartmentalized it by enacting under different sets of law although the Human Rights is Universal, inalienable, indivisible and interrelated. I have been long looking for a person who is interested in Human Rights to work together. I hope if you are interested in Human Rights you will consider working with me.
One of the advantages of working in Human Rights law is that you can go above and beyond the Supreme Court of Canada to United Nations to make Canada comply with the International Human Rights standard because Canada has signed binding treaty agreement with United Nations. For example, the self-represented litigants’ issue in the context of claim actions like in Pintea could not go beyond Supreme Court of Canada even if the Supreme Court of Canada had not decided it fairly. But, a self-represented litigant issue in the context of Human Rights can go beyond Supreme Court of Canada to United Nations if the Supreme Court of Canada does not decide it fairly. Therefore, the chances to make changes are higher when we use proceedings under Human Rights law as a vehicle. For this reason, I am strategically proceeding under Human Rights law to create good record for me to put before the United Nations. However, my ability is so limited because I am working alone. It would be great if I can partner with someone like you.
Koba I am not a lawyer but I wish to ask have you tried going beyond the HRTO (or Canada) for that matter? You may find what they write in books and statutes do not exist in reality. I tried complaining to the UN (on human rights grounds) and the best response I ever got was that only the government can pursue legal matters to them. I do not even want to remember the run around I got including from the various UN bodies.
I always thought especially when I see or hear of some judges conduct and thought we could go outside of here to including to the UN. Tow (or three of us tried to make a case about access to justice and we never even got acknowledged in some instance and others just told us some nonsense that I gave up on the international bodies too.
Quite frankly me experience with HRTO has left me feeling more abused and victimized than the nasty degrading deeds done to me that made me complain in the first place. Dealing with HRTO and HRLSC is an INDIGNITY. I would love to see someone go beyond human rights tribunals and take an issue beyond the Supreme Court. I told the one in Toronto I was seeking a test case against them but LAO seems to think not being responsive will make me go away and like forever the legal clinic to cater to black Ontarians seems like it is going to die before it is born. It is supposed to replace the African Canadian Legal Clinic that was de-funded. More than a year now they claim to have set up office but to date there is no functional clinic. I am beginning to see it as hopeless already
Thanks Koba — you have clearly given this much thought, but unfortunately I am not an expert in human rights or international law; I’m not yet a lawyer in fact! One thing I do know is that Canada is a dualist country, which means that international law would only be binding in Canada if it was ratified into domestic law. I do believe, however, that our Supreme Court, even if there is often healthy debate at times with respect to some of its decisions, is careful to decide its cases fairly.
With the utmost respect Chantel, we should all expect that the Supreme Court “is careful to decide its cases fairly”. Given that they hear less than 10% of cases submitted. My central point is, that if the lower court of appeal did a better and fairer job, there would be less “errors of law and fact” at the Court of 1st instance. This would drastically reduce the submissions to the Court of Appeal and subsequently to the Supreme Court!
I read of cases where the judge at the Court of 1st instance made 8 errors of law and repeats more errors in subsequent cases. If that same judge worked at Wal-Mart, MacDonalds or in an Assembly Plant etc.and made the the same quantity of errors he/she would be fired.
Acting as SRL’s and if we make one error in the Rules or in misinterpreting an Act etc. we’re done forever. As the higher Appeal Court Judge rarely goes against their lower Court judge’s ruling, because they do not presume a SRL would dare challenge the 1st instance judge’s error (s)! If a SRL does challenge the 1st judge’s error and happens to show validity. My experience has been that “vexatious” and “abuse of process” suddenly comes to the fore!
At that point in time the SRL is branded by the higher Court of Appeal as a “vexatious litigant”. Despite the fact that if there were any vexatious conduct it had to have ocurred in prior hearings.
It just doesn’t compute, other than the perception that the Appeal Court judge’s decision of putting a final end to the litigation, and sealing the SRL’S fate with the (10%) only option of The Supreme Court left. Which is “slim and none” and slim is out of town!
I say all of the above with absolute respect, rationale and sincerity.
To Chantal
My apologies for misspelling your name Chantal, got caught with auto-correction on my phone.
Alex
Actually Alex, the SCC hears more than 10% of cases submitted, once you exclude the SRL applications. SRLs are 28% of leave applications presently and rising, but since these have zero chance of being granted – as a matter of policy – it is not correct to even include them in computing the statistics.
.
You are certainly right that “branding” of SRLs as vexatious is an indisputable feature of the current system. Lawyers will raise the specter of a vexatious litigant at the very first moment, because they know it has such a prejudicial effect on the litigation. There are also no consequences for doing so, even if the judge ultimately finds the litigation has merit. Name one decision where counsel where sanctioned for engaging in this type of character smearing?
I agree, the lawyers slander you however they can,, judges allow it,, and the self represented litigant is done for, No matter what your case is, So, I have said repeatedly,,, this is no longer a legal case with no merit,, it is justice by character assignation and slander, it has nothing to do with actual justice, This Is what was done to me, And I know it is an extremely well used tactic, It is dishonorable, and dishonest, It does not in anyway indicate the application of justice,, Now,, where are the politicians, where are the attorney generals where are any members of the legal system who are supposed to be appalled by this atrocity. I posted a request on this site over a week ago asking for legal assistance. I have not received one offer, This appalling behavior is happening, but the legal system seems just fine with it. So, it is just a procedural tactic to shut us up. No matter how illegal it is,
It is a very sad situation the way self-represented litigants appear to be targeted by those that purport to operate under the rule of law. It’s all about the money whether you’re at Government level, legal council level or the judiciary. It must be the worst justice system (if you dare call it that) in the western world.
I feel your pain Sandra and many of you who are on this site. I can tell you that I will help any individual in a civil action. I am not clued into Family law but I know what you are going through, I have been at my case for over 12 years. Had I known it was going to be this long I would have tried to get a law degree.
Sandra — have you had a look on this website under “Initiatives”? NSRLP has compiled a national directory of people who may be able assist.
Chantal most do not really assist. They fake it
To K
Clearly you have done more research than I so I cannot dispute your numbers.
On the topic of “vexatious litigant”. In some jurisdictions there isn’t a rule that provides for “vexatious litigant”,
I know Ontario does under Rules of Procedure 2.1 but other jurisdictions “vexatious litigant” is brought to bear by the presiding judge via Section 23.1 of The Judicature Act, thus bringing in The Attorney General and the Minister of Justice for validation. Since the branding of naming an individual a “vexatious litigant” is such a blunt instrument, it request the Minister authorization. ( I believe)
This then opportunes an Applicant to file against the Minister for failing to intervene in a case with validity and merits. It may be a stretch but it is worth checking sections 24 & 25 of The Judicature Act to ascertain if there are any Charter breaches by the Minister’s inaction that resulted to vilify a SRL?
Just a thought in the name of justice. Should one indeed have been railroaded at the judicial level.
To K
I do not disbelieve your number of 28% of SRL Supreme Court applications. Was this based on 2018 numbers?
The reason I ask is that I plan on using the 28% in my challenge to the Ministers of Justice Judicature Act lawsuit that easvused to secure “vexatious litigant” in my particular action. I have a right to know why they failed to intervene and/or investigate the facts and merits of my case when I was declared a “vexatious litigant” under the Judicature Act where it clearly states in rule 25 of the Judicature Act that the Minister must be advised prior to declaring any person a “vexatious litigant”.
I’d be interested in your homework and how you arrived at 28% I suppose I could do it myself but you must have painstakingly gone through all the cases both criminal (as of a right) and all civil. I love the statistical effort you must have gone through and I do agree with you that removal of the SRL Applicatons would skew the percentage upwards to closer to 15% or more of cases given leave. But, that reassures more factual information that SRL’S are not being treated equal in the eyes ofthe law in accordance with s7 & s15 of the Charter and that in and of itself is actionable. One could even claim conspiratorial?
Alex I can tell you this, vexatious litigant declarations in Alberta were not done according to law including that no notice was provided to the AG (except in one instance). We have a good Class Action against the Alberta Government (and those judges). But how do we take legal action against rogue judges before their brother/sister judges some even more rogue that the rogue we would be taking to court?
Also, now they use the Rules of Court they created to supercede the law by arrogating rights to themselves that no law gives them (the power to declare litigants vexatious and take away their rights without having to give the notice to the AG). Are you aware that prior to that bogus judicature Act S, 23 only the AG (legislature) could declare a litigant vexatious?
We blinked and the politicians sold out our rights
In a nutshell, the SCC does not give leave to SRLS PERIOD! The record speaks for itself! It is imperative that this issue be aggressively addressed along with Justices collusive conduct and aiding and abetting under s21 of The Criminal Code and declaring SRLS “vexatious litigants”. Our biggest roadblock is the Justice Minister who is required to intervene as per s23 of The Judicature Act, probably appointed the judge you are complaing about. The system is so incestuous among politicians, lawyers and justices all the way to the SCC Registrar of the who basically acts as the gatekeeper. So, what have we got left, The CJC? We must go forward methodically as Allen has recommended to THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION and hope some major Media supports our cause so facts not opinion must be the driver .
yes,, public opinion, i sent my story all over, no one would print it, So,, whenever a story comes up in the vancouver sun that in some way is connected, I go onto the comments section and start telling it how it is, I have encountered a great deal of kindness, but also a great deal of hostility and meanness, There is one person in particular that seems to stalk me ridiculing me and trying to suggest i am a professional victim etc etc, So far i am holding my own, i think. But it would go so much further if someone would do a story on this, We have been silenced, I don’t know how to actually get over the wall., Any ideas??
No worries about the spelling of my name, Alex. I take your point about if there was vexatious conduct or abuse of process found that these things should have been at issue in earlier proceedings and should not be used as a means of dismissing SRL cases. My argument was more towards that once cases actually do reach the Supreme Court, that they are handled fairly. Given the relatively small number of cases the Supreme Court can actually hear, combined with all the major challenges SRLs face along the way, I would certainly not disagree that there is great disadvantage.
The NSRLP completed research on the use of summary judgments and given that my blog is similar in theme but in the human rights context — I of course would agree 100% that procedures can affect the outcome. We should be looking to both the procedures and outcomes when it appears that the procedure could have an effect on the outcome, and not looking to procedures only, when we make determinations on what is considered fair. Julie Macfarlane had an interesting discussion on this subject on an earlier episode of the podcast Jumping Off the Ivory Tower with none other than…a former Supreme Court Justice!
Thanks for your positive response I believe I listened to Julie’s podcast with former SCC Justice Thomas Cromwell but I may be mistaken. Justice Cromwell was a major loss after he retired. I used his review in the Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 71 case regarding “qood faith and honesty as a general organising principle” as precedent in my case but unfortunately Justice Cromwell had retired by the time my case reach the SCC. I doubt it would have ever been given leave in anh case.
My case has been severely prejudiced by the use of;
1. When the individual who committed the fraud took no position because earlier transcripts in the trial of the 1st instance at ABQB showed clear-cut evidence of fraud in the presence of perjury. Taking no position was a way out in avoiding further perjury, this was tantamount to declaring s 13 of self-crimination under the Charter. (Canada’s version of pleading the 5th)
2. At Appeal the single judge knew she could not rule on the actual claims of “fraud and perjury” otherwise she would had to have ruled in my favour, so she invoked section 23.1 of The Judicature Act and arbitrarily declared me a “vexatious litigant”. ( ironically she was thr same Judge in the Pintea v. Johns case that was overturned by the SCC)
3. I took it to the SCC and all the Registrar did was “copy and paste” the Appeal Court Judge’s reasons in his/her Summary.
I truly believe that had I not been a SRL the outcome would have been much different. Just like K said in this blog, 5000 SRL submissions at the SCC was by design to be automatically dismissed.
It really is a travesy of justice similar to the sexual harassment and assault cases were for decades prior to the “me too” movement.
In closing, I’m not letting this go, as in accordance with The Judicature Act both Ministers of Justice (Provincially and Federally) ought to have intervened or at the very least made enquiries and investigated as per The Judicature Act when the Bench uses the blunt instrument of “branding” any individual a “vexatious litigant”.
The National Self Represented Litigant Project [NSRLP] yourself and Julie et al, have and are still fighting this uphill battle in the name of REAL JUSTICE and I hope you never give up the fight till the fighting is done.
We SRL’S are not getting “honest and fair” treatment in our courts in accordance to s 7 & s15 of The Charter, nor equal benefit of The Rules of Court, Legislation and Stare Decisis. As it was clearly defined by our 14 th Chief Justice of the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, Bora Laskin.
I realize these are very serious comments but after 12 years of fighting in the courts and being victimized with bias, refusal of transcripts in fear of exposure. There can only be one conclusion and that is that the open “system” of equal justice for all is severely broken.
P.S. Even my wife who won a summary judgment for a blatant “constructive dismissal” (with my assistance of course). Is being vilified by the Courts because she used me as her McKenzie friend. It’s a disgrace!
Correction: I stated 5000 SRL’S that ought to have said 28% of 5000. This was using K’s entry which I have no doubt is correct as he/she appears to have his/her facts together.
Alex, if you look at the Alberta Court of Appeal Rules , they actually do not allow a single judge to dispose of an appeal but they hardly know the rules and even if they know it when they see a SRL they suddenly become mentally diminished. I don’t know how those ABCA judges even can have a straight face when they tell litigants their case is dismissed for “delay” when they are well within time so there is no delay. Usually they strike the case foolishly and then you apply for reinstatement within the 6 month time allowed. They have no clue delay is after the expiration of the 6 month period. They strike cases such as if you arrive at court after they call your case but the session is not over. Case in point, court starts at 10:00 AM and your case gets called before you arrive (you got stuck at LINC or some other office there, even if the electronic board shows your case listed for the wrong court room). So that AM session ends at about noon and you arrive 10:30 but they called your case already. They have no idea they need to stand the case down to the end of session and/or if you turned up they are to rescind the order to strike/dismiss. Lawyers usually hold brief for one another and often get the case stood down. The SRL does not have that privilege
I have long concluded that some judges in Alberta are a danger to the public
I agree Chantal that the SCC are fair with the cases they hear. My point is that zero SRL cases are being heard at the SCC, according to K’s research I believe he/she stated out of 5000 in over 5 years. I believe K’s numbers on this matter after my own experiences.
In simpler words “SRLS” are of no “public importance” (forgive my cynicism) and this is at $75.00 a time for those of us that can least afford it. Even if we apply for an extension…that’ll be another $75.00 thank you! I wouldn’t mind the $75.00 if we had a scintilla of a chance at getting leave. I’ll bet if all the SRL Applications for Leave were added up over the years it would be in the $100’s of thousands. And, that’s not including the ink, paper, courier and binding etc.
Another aspect is when the lower Appeal Court Judges, case in point: “Pintea v. Johns” know how little chance a SRL has at taking their case further to the SCC and getting leave. It emboldens those represented and these judges to stick it to you (i.e. $83,000.00 fine or payment into court) this of course was vacated, thanks to the pro bono action of Osler’s Colin Feasby. Who “but for” his humanity, Mr.Pintea would still have been stuck with an $83,000.00 debt to this day!
To repeat, yes the SCC are fair with big corporations and represented litigants such as Omar Khadr whose Charter of Rights were violated,or the recent Orphan Well issue in Alberta where the hard working farmers were going to be penalized because the Trustee under the BIA tried to disclaim the clean up of non-producing wells and cherry pick the producing ones for the financial benefit creditors (most likely a Bank already making billions in profit). That was TRUE JUSTICE in that regard. All of the above doesn’t change anything for SRL’S v. The Supreme Court of Canada?
Last point: “Judicial Independence” is supposed to mean “free of influence” from the Office of the PM and the Legislature. I understood it to also mean “free of influence” PERIOD!
Well, is that a reality??…hmm!
Hi Chantal
Not to belabour the issue but it is my observation and personal experience that some justices use “vexatious litigant” branding as a “back entrance off a cliff” or an “escape hatch”. When they do not want to address the “merits” that a SRL may have and have difficulty coming up with substantive “reasons” to dismiss.
My thoughts, but this “vexatious litigant” branding must be held to judicial merits as it is so blunt it destroys a SRL’S A2J and equalty of jusice.
agreed and in my case, the judge went so far as to ban me from ever bringing up the issue again,, so the appeal court did not accept my appeal, and no lawyer will re enter new evidence, I know they are not supposed to do that,, but he did,, and the legal system follows that.,
Sandra
It is obvious that you really do care about truth and justice. What a great support group this NSRLP is, but is anybody really listening?
I just watched some news that our Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Jody Wilson Raybold may have been up to some chicanery with SNC-LAVALIN.
I personally have had a horrible unethical experience with the “old pals” club of the Judiciary.
I am flummoxed with the system, it’s so difficult know who to trust.
Titles and position used to stand for something, money or other influences appear to have suffocated all principles. Who can we rely on, or trust anymore?
“Spin” seems to have taken over as an art form?
like you, I could not believe my eyes when watching the fraud and corruption in our courts, but I am not sure what to do about it,, from what I could see as well, no one is exempt, They would not be there if they were not like that, perhaps we could ask Julie and the staff here,, what can we as a group, do about what we all see is happening here, We do not have a way to stop it, ,one case at a time you might be able to win, but they keep on coming. because the systems are not changing,, The corruption and distortion of the truth and justice is horrifying, And the lying is something that not one member of the public is aware of unless they have had to deal with them, What can we do??
To Sandra
My wife and I won a judgment for a “constructive dismissal” from he work before a Master on a “Summary Judgment” but we have to have 3 day trial in May 22, 2019 for “assessment of damages” only. For everyones information Masters do not have the jurisdiction to “assess damages” in Alberta. Notwithstanding, that some Master’s have. More time, more money even though the other side has a lawyer, they’re so angry because we won they’re delaying for no beneficial reason at all.
We offered to settle but they hav too much animus. Crazy
It destroys the SRL’s reputation. Try getting a job with one of the vexatious litigant order against your name. Try doing anything. It is so bad and devastating to a persons character it should be a protected ground under human rights code(s)
Alex so few persons know what “vexatious” means especially in Alberta. They think you are such a liar and thief that chances are a judge sent you to prison. You are treated worse than those who get convicted of the capital charge. Their sentence ends but not a a person who has a VLO against them. Even judges have no clue what that VLO means.
I am yet to see a real vexatious litigant in Alberta. Every one of those orders was done contrary to law. and most are done just to tie the hands of savvy litigants who know how to file good legal document and make good arguments and worse if you can see through the judges’ little tactics. God help you if you know the rules (they usually don’t). They don’t like to be exposed so they pull out that weapon. Are you aware that originally the power to restrict a person’s access to the court was solely the jurisdiction of the legislature? I think the silly politicians got hoodwinked and gave that power to judges about 2007. We should INSIST that power is taken back from the judiciary and go right back to the executive. Nobody elected the judiciary: They are appointed and they account to no one. Now since the ones in Alberta are facing opposition (including from the AG and even other more intelligent judges) they make up their own rule of court to give themselves the power they realise no legislation gave them. That is a big red flag but so many of them are not even capable of getting it. Sometimes they say such foolishness you as the SRL are so embarrassed for them
judges should NOT have the power to label self represented litigants so, Yesterday in the vancouver sun,, i was challenged to define what a vexatious litigant was, Since i could think of no instance in which it would apply,, i stated what i consider to NOT be vexatious litigants, One was,, if what you are saying is the truth, And the court has an obligation to prove it isn’t. Another instance i used was, if there is evidence of sharp practice used in a case against the self represented,, There should be NO DECISION from the court, If they ignore this behavior,, they are condoning it, So,, those are prime areas now in which the courts are deciding to label the self represented as vexatious, with those two issues removed. What do THEY consider to be vexatious, Just being annoying?? That is not sufficient to steal someones access to the courts, and label them as persona non grata, That is also what is happening here in BC, They are making a concerted effort to hide it,, but that is what has been happening here for years now, Yes,, we need to organize, And start posting in virtually every paper you can post in, We need coverage,
Good for you Sandra, have any of you read the Christie Blatchford book called “Life Sentence” I have read excerpts and it’s all about her disappointment in the Canadian Legal System and in particular The Judiciary. She’s a really good author and also reports for The National Post. She was very active and wrote good fact and opinion pieces on the Robin Camp of “keep your knees together” case. I am going to buy the Kindle format and read the whole book.
She’s right on point with her assessment of the judiciary and lawyers being confederates and colleagues (my words not hers) when dealing with self-represented litigants.
Essentially, it is judicial malpractice of defaming and branding law abiding citizens and “Justice”!
Sandra we need to organise and formally petition the powers that be. Those in the seat of power. Those who are obligated to do something to change our laws and who have no clue what is really happening. Those to whom judges, lawyers and others of that grouping are petitioning and getting power to do us wrong. People on websites cannot help themselves let alone help us
If we had gotten together when I suggested we act we would have this issue as an serious election issue. Now we have lost that opportunity
i am agreeing,, i said a while back,, i would be happy to organize, No one contacted me, The national self represented organization did not contact me, I cannot organize alone, IF anyone is interested in joining,, i am here, I do not agree we have missed our chance, The election is still a bit of time away and if we are fast about it,, we can get our issue out there, Maybe we can knock issues that are not core,, like blackface, off the agenda,, and replace it with access to justice, And misuse of justice by the courts etc, abuse of the public by the courts, The courts refusing to follow their own rules with us,
Sorry I am just seeing your response Sandra. I am so busy and these tend to go to junk mail. We can still organize right after election and take on every body -province and federal. We can do it, TOGETHER! Dare them ignore us TOGETHER. John Carten alone kept them scared in BC. They did him in but man he stood up to them and trust me even I feel good about some results I got
has anyone else noticed how the newspapers or media will not run anything about the stories we have of being mistreated by the judicial systems across canada??? Now why not, And how do we get more attention to our issues, We have to become more high profile, So lets start doing it, If there is a candidate running for ANY party in your area, start asking them what they would do about this situation, Start posting on EVERY news media centre you can, We need more participation that is out front, start now,
Yes Sandra. At this point this we can all do. Later though when we come together so we can be louder, we must raise a shout and there are many ways to do that . .all by ourselves if it comes to that
The bottom line is that BUT FOR Albera Justices and Masters denial of equal justice for self-represented litigants [SRLS] they/we would receive absolute equal justice in our actions. Instead, simply by exercising our legal rights [SRLS] profoundly inflame Judges and Masters and the value of the TRUTH gets lost, and the danger of the LIE prevails by the judicial application to invoking the SRL a “Vexatious Litigant”.
I hear what you’re saying Allen but this as an election issue, though important to us would get smothered by all the other issues currently being used by Trudeau, Sheer and the others. A petition on “Vexatious Litigant” and the misuse of it by the Judiciary, and their confederate lawyers along with the inattention by the Justice Ministers is what is required as a 1st step. It is a disgrace to how it is being used to quash our so called “AC2J”.
very good, Lets do it then, but it is not just alberta justices,, it is also the judges here in BC and probably ontario etc, Where are the NSRL members standing on this?? Will they assist us? IF you want to prepare a petition, i am in, Lets do it,
Yes Sandra, I agree that similar transgressions are most likely happening in other jurisdictions, but I can only speak to my own specific fact patterns on my experiences. The evidence expressed in this site does show similar experiences in BC and Ontario and other jurisdictions, so you do show an existential pattern from coast to coast.
To start a petition and for a petition to have merits it must be supported by documentary evidence such as transcript proceedings, contradictory reasons for judgment, pleadings inter alia. Otherwise it will be deemed meritless. I would like to discuss this with you Sandra so I am authorizing the NSRLP to submit my email to you. Then we can have a telephone meeting and we can assess how to proceed forward, and organise with factual evidence.
I have signed many petitions but I only sign petitions that express factual merits. If we do not display and articulate facts that grab the readers interest, the petitions fail as they come accross as nothing more than a “disgruntlememt” etc. You are correct in asking your question to have the NSRLP involved but I doubt this would happen due to their policies. I do believe that the NSRLP have given us a voice on the issue of “Access to Justice”, I believe we do have “Access to the Courts” but the “Justice” part of the “Access” is not a reality and their ought to be a conversation about defining exactly what “Access” really and truly means, i.e. do SRLS do have equal [emphasis added] as that, that a lawyer enjoys?
wonderful,, i look forward to hearing from you,
I hear you Alex. Also, I do not think NSRLP should be involved. They have publications that we can find useful but this should be our petition. We need to set out ground rules/guidance before we do anything. We have to be orderly and be of good order at all times as a group. So this is my suggestion, you and Sandra seem ready and available right now, so do up a few basic procedures as to how we take any action in our name. We need to determine BEFORE we start how we say what we say to whomever we decide to say it to. I prefer decision made by a group of 3 or 5 rather than an individual. In the bigger scheme of things (thought process) I am left of centre so I don’t like to be controlled by an individual (less we create our own Hitler or Pol Pot) and spoil a good thing. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No one wants to be in hell. So I suggest the first call to action is we submit stuff to a group of 3 or 5 and not just be free for all.
P.S. If we were to be successful in putting a petition together I’d recommend that a copy is formally submitted to the CJC and all Provincial and Federal Justice Ministers and demand an investigation to how the “oath of office act” is being served.
Ok We will. It will be hectic for me until mid November including some instability as I have to travel (too much). But as soon as I land and get stable again I will give more than the 100%. Also let us see who get the portfolios federally come end of October here and then I suggest we start rattling every gate- provincially as well as federally at least in BC, AB and ON: This is the triumvirate (BC, AB and ON)
Alex, you are saying exactly what I am saying except I do not think our issue could be that easily be smothered. First of all which of them is saying anything new? How many Canadians are aware of the skull-duggery in our courts and what awaits them with the vexatious litigant legislation (if that is legislation) . That we could use to embarrass the whole lot of them. BUT we CANNOT get that done individually. It takes a gang to deal with a gang
Yes Allen, People will believe what they want to believe and neither you nor I can control that. For the record, I have documentary facts that backs up anything I say. “Vexatious” will obviously be misconstrued and interpreted by some to mean what people want it to mean. I have an impeccable record for challenging lies, wrongdoings and criminal activity committed by “the system”. I do have transcript proceedings proving perjury, conspiracy and aiding and abetting within the Judiciary. That is when and why “Vexatious” was used to clam me up!
It’s not over by no means!
I am being targeted to the extent that the Judges involved in a “workplace harassment” case against my wife that we won in a “Summary Judgment” took their wrath for me out on my wife by diminishing her award to a fifth of the damages she was entitled to in accordance with case law of similar judgments. The corruption in our courts are not fiction they are un-retractable facts!
They tried to use it to clam me up but I still talk. I apply for the leave and get my case filed. Sometimes they want to run when I march into court and announce ‘I was declared vexatious). I am here today for X,Y,Z”. The scared look on crooked lawyers’ face who thought it meant I was banned from court is usually priceless!
I’d love to speak with you in regards to my HRTO application and outcome. Not sure if I can take this further but sounds like you know this system is broken.
I still believe this election we should have made access to justice a major election issue and not be afraid to say it like it is that the biggest access to justice issue is misbehaving judges and as another poster here termed it their “sycophantic aids”. I think we miss the boat and should have organised ourselves already to raise our voices. Individually we can be ignored and are ignored. We could have ensured those who are wont to misbehave in our courts never get appointed to a court position
“Access to Justice” is a misnomer or could even be classified as a “red herring” misreprenting that “self-represented litigants” have hope when it’s a foregone conclusion that we SRLS have zero hope of getting “Access to Justice”. Yes, we have access to The Court, To file documents, to pay filing fees etc. But once we go before a Judge the “Justice” part of the “Access” is over or in legal language “Functus Officio” i.e. “the end”. It’s analogous to believing you have “Access” to millions because you bought a lotto ticket or “Access” to finding a lifelong dancing partner because you got “Access” to the Dance Hall. “Justice” is an unentitled commodity for SRLS and the legal system a-la the “confederates and colleagues” (Judges & Lawyers) make sure of that!
Hi Sherry. Apologies for the slow reply. You can contact NSRLP to put us in touch if you like.
Sherry where abouts are you? I will be away all of October but after a dismissal at HRTO you have 6 months to file for judicial review
I and another female employee brought a case for sexual harassment in the workplace to the Human Rights Tribunal offices in 1987-88. The intake officer told us get in line, she had a big stack of these cases on her desk, their organization was overwhelmed with complaints, and they doubted whether they could even help us. At the time Mr. R. Anand was head of the Tribunal. No response from him either.
My impression was that this organization was woefully understaffed and a waste of time for this type of complaint. Little seems to have changed since then.
They are in that position seemingly understaffed because of the nonsense procedures they apply to deal with cases. They need to appoint more capable adjudicators to hear cases. What is the point of those preliminary and summary hearings? Try even filing an application and see how many submissions you have to make to every little soul processing that simple application. You have to make ridiculous submissions to every dick, tom and harry who touches the file and trust me they do not know the difference between up and down or right and left let alone anything about racism, discrimination or human rights law. All they do is harass and oppress those who suffer human rights abuses
I’ll take this opportunity to offer what I think is some good news, or at least the prospect of some good news.
.
First I want to say something about terminology. The term used in this post and the comments is “summary hearing”. I’m still a bit confused about the terms. E.G., does “summary judgment” imply there has been a “summary trial” or are they two somewhat different animals?
.
What I went through in the B.C. Supreme Court in 2007 – https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc991/2007bcsc991.html – resulted in what I understood was a summary judgment, but I also understood that the hearing wasn’t a trial at all.
.
Just read the Introduction and Conclusion there to see what happened. They used Rule 19(24) of the B.C. Supreme Court rules.
.
That judgment is one of a train of results listed here – https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/#search/jId=bc&sort=decisionDate&id=Budgell&origJId=bc
.
What I was fighting throughout all of that was section 13 of the B.C. Labour Relations Code – initially its application to dismiss my complaint to the Labour Relations Board and then my assertion that it had been surreptitiously and illegally amended a number of years before I encountered it.
.
Section 13 is a gatekeeper device, i.e. a species of summary proceeding, but a singular one given its curious language and bizarre history.
.
So I’m continuing to work on getting it repealed. And as things now stand I have some real hope that I might succeed, and fairly soon. Section 13 has been in place since the end of 1992 and the Labour Board has relied on it to dismiss many hundreds of cases. Its loss therefore would be significant. Exactly what the repercussions would be remains to be seen.
.
But my opinion – that the entire section 13 story is one of sustained bad faith conduct – is on record publicly and now thanks to the B.C. government – in the second of two submissions listed here – https://engage.gov.bc.ca/labourrelations/written-submissions/ – in my name.
.
So years after my sojourn commenced I’m still optimistic that I’m going to get something accomplished, and that would be a far more significant result than if I’d prevailed early in sojourn.
Chris, when that happens Please let us know. It has a similar feel to the review done by Albert legislature with everyone being hopeful and then NOTHING changed
Allen, I take it that you’ve tangled with the ALRB over a duty of fair representation complaint.
.
The problem with the duty of fair representation is the same everywhere in Canada, and I’m guessing throughout the U.S., from which Canada imported the concept as a common law duty several decades ago.
.
If I’m successful in having section 13 of B.C.’s Labour Code repealed (and thus discrediting it) I expect that will have repercussions for the labour law regimes across the country – despite the fact that (as far as I know) a similar provision is not to be found in the labour statutes in any other jurisdiction.
.
All the labour boards have the same agenda with respect to the duty of fair representation. So I think it would be productive to have a close look at the DFR provisions in several of the statutes. I’ve just taken a quick first look at section 153 of the Alberta Labour Relations Code – https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-l-1/latest/rsa-2000-c-l-1.html#sec153 – and note that it reads very differently from the language in the B.C. code’s DFR provision(s) – https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-244/latest/rsbc-1996-c-244.html#sec12 .
.
Section 13 was added in 1992, and it’s removal would be a simple surgical exercise, i.e., it would require no change to any other provision.
.
It’s purpose was to give to the Board’s adjudicators the confidence to dismiss DFR complaints without inviting any response from the union (or employer). That is something they could still have argued they could do without the benefit of section 13 but evidently that approach had never been taken prior to the introduction of that section.
.
What would be worth determining now is which other labour boards in Canada have adopted that same approach since the BC Labour Board did. One that I believe was inspired by the BCLRB is the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, though I don’t think they are able to cite a statute provision.
.
I think that at least some (and perhaps most) of the labour boards still haven’t adopted that approach. And if that is so, then we should ask why not? Maybe some of them were astute enough to recognize how problematic it might become.
.
And some of them, having heard from me, must be aware that I’m claiming that section 13 was surreptitiously and illegally amended several years after its introduction. What the B.C. labour law bar recognized as problematic at that point was the reliance on a hybrid Latin / English term that is best characterised as legal slang. But the whole provision was very amateurishly constructed, and remains so.
.
If then the B.C. Labour Board is denied the ability to cite section 13 I would hope that any new statute provision contemplating a process for dealing with DFR complaints will be constructed with great care, and in good faith.
.
But what I’m aiming for is to have the oversight of the Duty taken away from a tribunal that exists to serve the interests of unions and employers and has never had any concern about the interests of rank-and-file members.
To Chris Budgell,
“Summary Judgment” and “Summary Trial” are different.
Summary Judgments are argued “viva voce” before a Judge complete with Affidavit exhibits. Without witness cross examinations. These are usually done on a half day special (2 hours) where the evidence is so clear-cut there is no need for a trial. They’re more expeditious if you can find an impartial judge…more so in Alberta jurisdiction for SRL’s where Alberta have an extremely low grading for judicial fairness. This is according to the Macdonald – Laurier Report who gave it a “C” in 2016. Lowest in Canada.
Summary Trials are more documentary but “viva voce” and witness cross examination is permitted. Summary Trials are usually 1-3 day events at a high booking fee $600 in Alberta. Probably similar in other jurisdictions.
Hope this gives some idea Chris.
The bottom line is that despite that we [SRLS] go to argue our cases BEFORE a judge, more often than not we end up arguing WITH a judge. We are a scourge and seen as a disturbing aspect to their plum jobs.
“Judicial Independence” is a myth that simply keeps legislators away but are rubber stamps for their brethren when SRL’S go up against represented clients.
Keep fighting though, it will change!
K’s facts are correct by stating 5000+ cases have been filed at the Supreme Court and only 1 has been heard and fyi, that 1 was dismissed. To repeat take Pintea out of the equation and the success rate is dismal and disgraceful if the truth be known.
That’s still no reason to give up, keep at it! And believe change is bound to happen as we grow in numbers.
Some Media group will do a major story on this SRL phenomenon, it’s too large to ignore. I emphasize “major” as there have been regional stories and some national mentions. Thanks to Julie and her team.
I found out today that:
1. The Supreme Court is not sacrosanct and “independent” (free of influence)
2. The Canadian Judiciary is not “independent”, instead they are “interdependent” on each other, and
3.They camouflage this by their claim they are adjudicating with a “deferential standard”
The system is broken, badly broken! Sad
Look at it this way: you now know what the vast majority of Canadians do not know. You are among the fortune ones, when there are hundreds and thousands more who mistakenly still have faith in the system.
.
The problem is people are being consciously deprived of the truth as to how misguided the system is. Even people associated with this blog have the truth and could take steps to prevent further harm, yet they choose to allow people to be harmed for some reason. This seems disconcertingly akin to social experimentation; that it may be justified if the expectation is it might result in advancements.
.
Today, because it is without personal cost unknowing people are knowingly put in harms way in the hope it will ultimately foster results. It is time for everyone to step back, rethink, and practice mindfulness, not self-delusion. This includes reconsidering what seems to be helpful, given evidence demonstrates it is not.
Well said…appreciate your reply. I am afraid to say it but we are living in an autocracy not a democracy on matters before the courts as we are led to believe.
I know , it is a shock to realize that if the court tells you that you can appeal to a higher court, it really is just more of the same stuff. rarely if ever do they disagree with each other, So, that is why the rules are they way they are, Yes, the system is very bad, that is why I have been appealing to both the arrogant attorney generals, here in bc as well as Canada, trying to get them to amend the rules so the system is at least slightly fair, so far, I have been laughed at, told rudely to go away, mocked and ridiculed, and finally completely ignored, That is the governments of Canada, and british Columbia for you, it does not shock me to hear the Ontario judicial system is the same, I have no idea if this project will accomplish much, but,, we must try, good luck,
They can ignore you as an individual Sandra but do you think they would try to do that if we were a group acting together in a sensible manner? If we turn up certain places as a group even if by document only, do you think they would dare?
I am posting relentlessly in the vancouver sun where you are allowed to comment on stories, Everytime a story shows up regarding justice, the courts , the attorney general etc etc, i am on there,, stating what our actual experiences are with the system and how corrupt it actually is, I believe from the hostile responses i get now and again,, that i am in fact striking a point or two, I would be willing to do whatever on whatever site, We need very much to attract attention to this issue BEFORE,, the election, Maybe the people at nsrlp can help?? Anyone else willing to so so,,, i am in!! In fact,, i am already doing it., Let them wear their shame publicly!!! Having no ethics, and abusing the people who approach them is not a stellar day for the justice system,
I agree — I was discussing how it would be useful to get administration of and access to justice matters into party platforms and make them a live issue. We are stuck in a loop responding to things like provincial cuts to Legal Aid budgets (eg Ontario) in a knee jerk fashion, distracting us from the fact that we now have broader access to justice issues we are facing systemically today.
Yes Alex, everybody defers to everybody else so justice is very elusive
Having self represented in various matters over the years, including but not limited to being a crown witness…twice!. I, personally, have had a very unique opportunity to observe and learn the workings of our “legal” system.
For the most part I can say that when it comes down to it I have always been treated with respect and in reciprocation I am very careful to be polite and respectful not only to the Court but also to witnesses and to the opposing side be it the Crown or a Respondent.
One of my main grievances however is with the Provincial Court in Ontario. I specifically mention Ontario as I have not, as yet, experienced the dance of the courtroom in other provinces, save and except for a trial(Crown Witness) in Newfoundland.
I have experienced and seen many times in the Provincial Court where the Justice of the Peace who is supposed to be the “trier of fact” inquires of the Crown Prosecutor/Crown Attorney as to “the law in the matter”.
In my view, by doing so, the Honourable Justice relinquishes his/her jurisdiction and position of authority as the” trier of fact” and gives over authority and command of the Court to the Prosecutor,
In my mind this unfairly puts the self represented litigant at an extreme disadvantage. One could say it is akin to a double jeopardy situation.
If someone’s liberty is as stake or the matter at issue could result in a term of imprisonment or substantial fine then the case should only be in the hands of a Judge and not in the hands of a Justice of the Peace.
Justices of the Peace are not required to have passed the bar nor do they require any legal background in order to be on the bench.
This, with respect, needs to change.
A Justice of the Peace may be suitable for officiating at nuptials or signing marriage licences or to adjudicate traffic fines or parking tickets but certainly not anything higher.
Perhaps this is the problem with a lot of the Tribunals also. Very few of the adjudicators have any legal background and the hearings are controlled by the “prosecution”.
JMO
My vote for your blog topic is “REZ JUDICATA”.
I have used your statistics many times in my comments regarding the judicial system out her in BC, I have always referred to you as the national self represented organization from Windsor Ont university, if you change a lot of your name people will not find you. Not to suggest that many actually took me up on looking at the stats,,, just that I said,, they could do so. Please keep whatever the public is aware of as you. We really do not want to lose followers.
Sandra Olson: ” A form of bullying is to isolate you and disregard you.” – So true, and so often used in the legal world as you point out.
In N.S. bullying used to be under criminal code but our lawyers changed it so now we have to sue the bully-but you cant sue lawyers {you really can but judges protect them} so in a conflict of interest lawyers can now bully all they want by writing the law to protect themselves.
Lawyers lobbied the gov. to create the laws they use against SRL’s-why cant we all together do the same?
KPMG lobbied the gov. and had them write laws that exempt the rich from paying any taxes {type in kpmg cbc} so why cant every one else do the same-the rich can afford taxes yet dont pay taxes !!!!!
So the whole problem is only lawyers are allowed to write laws so the laws are bias-so its discrimination to only let lawyers shape the justice system.
jan 30 2019
To Tom Tupper
What a fantastic summary, you are so correct to every point. I personally have suffered severely to all the points you make. I am also empathetic and sympathetic to all the others like Sandra Olson who has showed the courage to bear her soul, this lip service from the Prime Minister on down who say Canada is a country that follows and operates under the “Rule of Law” and a Supreme Court who propagate “fairness and equal justice for all” under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” does not apply to Self Represented Litigants! [SRL’S]. I know because I’m one of them and as I have learned so are many of you thanks to this NSRLP Project.
The “ME TOO” movement was closeted for decades until special persons challenged the powerful who felt ttey were entitled and untouchable: Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein to name a few. The same is happening with SRL’S and their time has come too before suicides and mental breakdowns, (if not already happened or contemplated).
Fighting adversaries who have blatantly commited wrongs is difficult enough without having to fight those that are supposed to administer justice as our right. Namely: Judges and their sycophantic aids.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again “judicial independence” is a misnomer. Sure the Judiciary is independent of the other two branches of government of the PM’s office and the Legislature but they are not independent from other judges or the CJC or the cherry picking of the Rules of Court in order to satisfy their preconceived conclusions when it of SRL’S.
I could go on but I believe I have made my point that as far as SRL’S are concerned were banging our heads against a brick wall and expecting equal justice where there is none.
Kudos to all who make their voices heard on this NSRLP site with a special shout out to Julie abd her team, K (whoever you are), Sandra Olson and Tom Tupper who articulated the real problem of rogue lawyers and judges that are symphoning our tax dollars straight out of our pockets…for what?
By the way this has been a fantastic blog that has aired an expose` as to how disgusted and sick and tired we SRL’S are of being persecuted and targeted by those we are expected to rely on for fairness, honesty and justice in our Courts of the appointed!
The law is distorted also as a result since one side has lawyers the other does not so there is re-writing of provisions to benefit human rights abusers. Take this service dog case. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2021/2021hrto771/2021hrto771.html?resultIndex=2 . They re-wrote the Regulations to permit people to be forced to surrender documents at the will of some owner. That’s what you get when the owner has a lawyer and the applicant does not.