Great Law Event in Toronto, Canada! LOOKING FORWARD, LOOKING BACK: 40 YEARS OF RESISTANCE

LAW UNION

Join us on Saturday, March 16, 2013, for the Law Union of Ontario’s Annual Conference! 2013 marks the 40th anniversary of the Law Union, and this year’s conference will bring progressive legal and activist communities together to discuss an exciting and challenging series of issues. To register for a day of inspiring and provocative panels, workshops, and discussion click here: REGISTER

The conference will be held at Victoria College, on the University of Toronto campus. The address is 91 Charles Street, with the building just south of Charles. This facility is wheelchair accessible. Follow this link for a map of the exact location of the conference: http://map.utoronto.ca/building/501

Scroll down for the full schedule of panels and speakers.

CPD hours pending.

FRIDAY, MARCH 15TH: ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION AT THE TRANZAC

In honour of the Law Union’s 40th anniversary, join other conference-goers on the evening of Friday, March 15th, for a celebration with live music, drinks, reflections, and awards. This event will be held at the Tranzac, 292 Brunswick Avenue, Toronto, from 7:30 pm onwards. All are welcome!

CONFERENCE PROGRAM: MARCH 16TH
Victoria College

REGISTRATION: 8 AM

PANELS: 9 – 10:30 am

Envisioning the New Law Practice Program
Renatta Austin, Articling Student, City of Toronto
Elena Iosef, Osgoode Hall Legal and Literary Society
Janet Minor, Ministry of the Attorney General, Law Society Bencher

Deconstructing the Doctrine of Discovery
Tannis Nielsen, Artist and Educator

Mental Health and Justice: Three Unique Voices
Sarah Shartal
TBA

Working on the Margins: Perspectives on Migrant Work in Canada
Fay Faraday, Osgoode Hall Law School, Faraday Law
Kelly Botengan, Magkaisa Centre, Phillipine Women’s Centre
Evelyn Encalada, Justice for Migrant Workers

MORNING PLENARY: 10:45 am – 12:15 pm

Panels full of Women: 40 Years Later, Has Anything Changed?
Beth Symes, Symes Street & Millard LLP, Law Society Bencher
Janet Minor, Ministry of the Attorney General, Law Society Bencher
Jessica Wolfe, Legal Aid Ontario
Sharon Walker, Dykeman Dewirst O’Brien, LLP

PANELS: 1:30 – 3:00 pm

Resonance: Police Racial Profiling and Intelligence Gathering
Vickie McPhee, Rights Watch Network
TBA

Decolonizing Relationships: Treaties and Beyond
Diane Kelly, Former Ogichidaakwe (Grand Chief), Treaty #3
Crystal Sinclair, B.S.W., Activist and Organizer, Idle No More Toronto
Lorraine Land, Olthuis Kleer Townshend

Advocacy out of the Courtroom: Skills without Gowns
Asha James, Falconer Charney LLP
Janina Fogels, Human Rights Legal Support Centre
Diana Zlomistic, Toronto Star

Resisting Neoliberal Reductions in Access to Justice
TBA

PANELS: 3:15 – 4:45 pm

Solidarity City Now: Legal and Community Organizing for Immigrant Justice
Rathika Vasavithasan, Parkdale Community Legal Services
Faria Kamal, Health for All
Sarah Mikhaiel, Sanctuary Network
Liza Draman, Caregivers Action Network

The End of the Employee: A Critical Discussion on the Rise of Contract Work, Internships and Underemployment
Claire Seaborn, Canadian Intern Association
Jenny Ahn, CAW, Director for Membership, Mobilization and Political Action
TBA

Aboriginal Youth and Child Welfare
Rina Okimawinew, Attawapiskat First Nation
Billie-Jean McBride, George Brown College
Judith Rae, Olthuis Kleer Townshend

Prison Litigation as Harm Reduction
TBA

AFTERNOON KEYNOTE: 5 – 5:30 pm

Delia Opekokew is a lawyer and a deputy Chief Adjudicator for the Independent Assessment Process. From the Canoe Lake First Nation in Saskatchewan, she was the first First Nations lawyer ever admitted to the bar association in Ontario and in Saskatchewan, as well as the first woman ever to run for the leadership of the Assembly of First Nations.

Childcare will be provided – please email us in advance at lawunionofontario@gmail.com with the number and ages of the children who will be attending.

If you would like to donate to the conference, you may do so through
the Jur-Ed Foundation at Canada Helps

Questions? Email us at lawunionofontario@gmail.com, and include “conference” in the subject heading.

Episode 40 (Dec 2012) – Race, Gender, and Social Context

Welcome et bienvenue to LegalEase: a monthly Montreal-based and produced radio show on 90.3 FM CKUT – a broadcast about law, cast broadly. Le collectif LegalEase est un groupe d’étudiants et étudiantes en droit de la communauté montréalaise.This month the program is entitled, “Race, Gender, and Social Context.”

Listen to the Episode Here

Host Garrett Zehr chairs an array of reflections on the subject of discrimination in Canada, specifically looking at race and gender. First, contributor Alyssa Clutterbuck presents a segment on the nature of discrimination. Sonia Lawrence, Professor at Osgoode law school, discusses the subject – “Is all discrimination alike?” Lawrence is the Director at the Institute for Feminist Legal Studies at Osgoode. Twitter – @osgoodeifls. This pithy presentation is worth listening to several times over.

Second, LegalEase remembers R v. RDS at 15 years – a seminal decision on race and and the judicial system. R. v. S. (R.D.), 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 484, In the case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruminates over the decision of Nova Scotia judge Sparks to take judicial notice of the systemic racism within the justice system. A finding of reasonable apprehension of bias against Sparks was overturned at the Supreme Court. Contributor Alyssa Clutterbuck sets up the piece, explaining why the case remains a chilling representation of the manner in which the Canadian legal system discusses race. Next, Legalease contributor Lillian Boctor interviews Dr. Esmeralda Thornhill James Robinson Chair at Dalhousie University and visiting scholar at McGill.

Finally, LegalEase revisits an earlier story presenting a study by Natai Shelson on the gendered experience of law school. You can find part of Shelson’s study at p 4 of the this edition of the Quid Novi, February 2011.

LegalEase on 90.3 FM is a radio program broadcast every second Friday of the month at 11am EST from Montreal, Quebec. Originally founded by the McGill Legal Information Clinic in 1989, LegalEase is now run by a collective of progressive of law students from McGill University. Our weekly radio show deals with legal topics of interest to the community, with the intention of making the law both accessible and engaging. Tune into our show, follow us on Twitter @LegalEaseCkut, email legalease[at]ckut.ca or check our podcast library for past programming.

Copyright Law – Look What They’ve Done To My Song, Ma

Check out the Saturday, February  9, 2013, edition of the CBC Program “Under the Influence”. Great analysis of Court cases regarding the use of songs in commercials and for commercial purposes. Very fun episode.

Read on here:

http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/season-2/2013/02/09/look-what-theyve-done-to-my-song-ma/

Listen here:

http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2333357564

(In) Famous Cases: The Trial of Sholom Schwartzbard

Sholom

France. 1927. Murder. Genocide. Justice. The Trial of Sholom Schwartzbard. A radical yiddish anarchist is a lonely parisian. Years earlier his entire family had been murdered by Ukrainian nationalists during pogroms, along with thousands of other Ukrainian Jews. In Schwartzbard’s mind, blame rested on the shoulders of the movement’s leader, Simon Petlura. So Schwartzbard killed Petlura on the streets of Paris, using a pistol. Here is Time magazine’s rendering of the trial from 1927.

 
 
Monday, Nov. 07, 1927

FRANCE: Petlura Trial

Court. In the dim court of Assizes, in Paris, during the past fortnight, more  than 400 spectators saw the beginning and the end of one of the most  gruesome, bloodcurdling, impassioned trials ever to be held in that  vaulted hall of justice. Quivering flappers sat to gasp with  astonishment beside white & black bearded Jews who exchanged shocked  glances with flat-faced Slavic Ukrainians under the noses of red &  black-robed judges. Within and without the courtroom was a triple guard  of gendarmes to prevent disorder.

 

Culprit. The accused man, who not only admitted committing the crime but  even boasted of it, was a young Jewish Ukrainian, now a naturalized  Frenchman, Sholem (Samuel) Schwartzbard, a watchmaker by profession.  Short, ugly, he yet commanded the attention of the whole court, for he  told his story, not as do many prisoners, shamefaced and haltingly,  forced to reveal their crimes and motives by harassing lawyers—no,  Watchmaker Schwartzbard openly confessed with gleaming eyes and  hysterical mien, his body trembling with passion, how he slew  “General” Simon Petlura to avenge the deaths of thousands of Jews slain  in pogroms, which he charged “General” Petlura instigated.

 

Victim. Simon Petlura, in the opinion of many, was an adventurer. The  son of a Russian cabman, he is said to have been active in plotting  against the Tsar. In 1918 he entered Kiev, capital of the Ukraine, with  the Austrian and German armies, under whose auspices he took the lead  in trying to separate that province from the rest of Russia. He not  only promoted himself a general but also declared himself ruler of  the Ukraine. He failed and was obliged to flee. Two years later he  reappeared, this time under the Poles, becoming president of a  short-lived Ukrainian republic. He played off the Poles against the  Bolsheviki and the Bolsheviki against the Poles and, eventually, again  fell from power, this time to flee to France, where he lived in Paris  until slain there by M. Schwartzbard. Under his regime, it is  charged, more than 50,000 Jews were killed.

 

Lawyers. Henri Torres, chief counsel for the defense, florid, bloated,  dynamic, put his histrionic abilities to the test when, leaping past  his colleagues into the middle of the courtroom, he brandished a  revolver, produced from under his voluminous black gown. Shrieks of  terror mingled with gasps met this display. Flappers sat with blanched  faces; bewhiskered Hebrews rocked back and forth with supressed  excitement; Ukrainians, more pallid than ever, glanced nervously through  their narrow eyes. Maitre Torres, aiming at a chair, pulled the  trigger—there was a dull click, followed by sighs of relief. He was  attempting to prove that M. Schwartzbard could not have shot Simon  Petlura as he lay , prone on the ground.

 

Cesare Campinchi, flaccid, verbose, excitable, chief prosecution  lawyer representing the Petlura family, particularly Widow Petlura, who  was in court, proved himself the equal of Maitre Torres in oratorical  and theatrical ability. Accused of suppressing evidence by M. Torres,  he roared: “Don’t accuse me of suppressing evidence, Torres!”*  “Don’t  force me to place in evidence your personal pedigree!” yelled Torres.  And thus they continued.

Crime. Simon Petlura was shot at the corner of the Rue Racine, and the  Boulevard St. Michel, on May 25, 1926. As M. Schwartzbard described the  murder to the court:

“Here’s my chance, I thought. ‘Are you Petlura?’ I asked him. He did not  answer, simply lifting his heavy cane. I knew it was he.

“I shot him five times. I shot him like a soldier who knows how to  shoot, and I shot straight so as not to hit any innocent passerby. At  the fifth shot he fell. He didn’t say a word. There were only cries and  convulsions.

 

“When I saw him fall I knew he had received five bullets. Then I emptied  my revolver. The crowd had scattered. A policeman came up quietly and  said: ‘Is that enough?’ I answered: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then give me your  revolver.’ I gave him the revolver, saying: ‘I have killed a great  assassin.’

 

“When the policeman told me Petlura was dead I could not hide my Joy. I  leaped forward and threw my arms about his neck.”

“Then you admit premeditation?” asked the judge.

“Yes, yes!” replied M. Schwartzbard, his face lit with fanatical  exultation.

 

Trial. The case opened with M. Schwartzbard telling the court in a high  pitched voice and halting French, his beady eyes gleaming, his face  suffused with joy, how he had tracked Petlura down. With a photograph  of his intended victim in his pocket and a loaded pistol in another, he  was wont to roam the street peering into the faces of passers-by to see  if they were Petlura. All this, he said, he did to avenge the  assassinations of his coreligionists. Finally, he found and killed  him.

 

One Reginald Smith, an Englishman, a reputed eye-witness of the crime,  was called to describe the crime. Quoting Shakespeare, he ended his  testimony by referring to Schwartzbard’s expression as Petlura fell:  “He wore an expression of ‘exaltation mixed with anguish.’ “

 

Many witnesses called by the prosecution declared that Petlura was not  an enemy of the Jews, but Maitre Torres insisted that “Petlura’s  proclamations expressing indignation over the pogroms were mere  blinds. While murdering Jewish men, women & children, he had to  maintain a straight face before the opinion of the world. He also  wanted money from Jewish bankers.”

 

“No,” said a massive Slav, “Petlura was not antiSemitic. He was a  humanitarian—a friend of the Jews.”

 

“No, no, no, he lies!” chorused a dozen people in the court in as many  languages.

 

“They cut them down with naked blades,” screamed M. Schwartzbard.

 

“I accuse that man of being an agent of Moscow. I swear it a thousand  times!” roared another witness for the prosecution, pointing an  accusatory forefinger at M. Schwartzbard.

 

“You—! You—!” yelled Schwartzbard, jumping to his, feet,  incoherent with rage, his shoulders quivering in spasmodic jerks.  Recovering his powder of speech, he continued:

“Do you remember the terrible days of 1910 and 1911 at Kiev? Do you  remember the accusations that Jews were using Christian blood for  Easter ceremonies? You hate me because I am a Jew!”

“No,” screamed the other in a high falsetto, “because you are a  Bolshevik!”

“Prove it! Prove it, then!” flung back the defiant Schwartzbard,  dropping limp, into his seat.

 

A squat Slav, called by the prosecution, who described himself as an  “historian, a man of letters and at present an assistant to a stone-mason,” gave evidence in Petlura’s philo-Semiticism, denying with a  grief-contorted face that the “General” had ever killed Jews or  caused them to be massacred.

 

“Yes! Yes! He massacred them!” shouted Schwartzbard, unnerved.

 

The most notable witness called, however, was Mile. Haia Greenberg,  29, a curly bobbed-haired nurse. In a soft, low voice, she told of the  carnage and rapine ordered by Simon Petlura and of the blood-bathed  home of her grandparents. Murmured she:

“I shall never forget the reddened snowsleds, filled with the hacked  bodies, going to the cemetery to desposit their sad burden, in a common  pit. They brought the wounded to the hospital— armless and legless  men, mutilated babies and young women whose screams became faint as  their wounds overcame them.”

 

Then breaking down and sobbing convulsively she screamed: “Oh, no, no!  I cannot go on! They are before my eyes!”

 

“Petlura was responsible. Even Ukrainian officers said so. His soldiers  killed our people, shouting his name. One regiment had a band and it  played while knives fell on the heads of innocent babies. Petlura could  have stopped it, but he wouldn’t listen to our pleas.”

 

Verdict. Amid tense excitement, after an absence of 35 minutes, the jury  returned a verdict for the young, pale faced Jew’s acquittal. Frenzied  cheering greeted the decision. M. Schwartzbard, calm, kissed his  lawyer, Maitre Henri Torres. “Vive la France!” shouted somebody. “Vive  la France!” echoed some 500 voices.

 

In addition to setting M. Schwartzbard free, the verdict ordered the  Petlura family, represented by Maitre Caesare Campinchi, to pay the  costs of the trial, but awarded damages of one franc each to Mme.  Petlura, widow of the slain “General,” and to M. Petlura, his brother.

 

The outcome of the trial, which gripped all Europe, was regarded by the  Jews as establishing proof of the horrors perpetrated against their  co-religionists in the Ukraine under the dictatorship of Simon Petlura;  radical opinion rejoiced, but the conservatives saw justice flouted and  the decorum of the French courts immeasurably impaired.

 

Schwartzbard, free, went into hiding, fearing assassination at the hands  of anti-Semites.

 

*It is customary in French courts to employ the title  “maitre,” a term of respect.

Discrimination Against Roma in Hungary: European Court

The European Court of Human Rights (constituted under the Council of Europe) released a decision on January 29, 2013 concerning discrimination against Roma citizens in Hungary. The case is HORVÁTH AND KISS v. HUNGARY 11146/11 . The two complainants had been been improperly placed in special education schools designed for mentally disabled / special needs students on the basis of their ethnic origin. The European Roma Rights Centre were active in representing the complainants.

Pre-emptive Deportations, Thanks Canada!

The ruling falls at a time when Canada is putting up major barriers to Roma migration. Despite voluminous indications of differential treatment and xenophobia, the Canadian Government, and in particular, Minister of Immigration et al, Jason Kenney has been making strides in depicting Hungary as a safe democratic country. In particular, and in a bizarre move, Kenney has been setting up billboards in Hungary, telling Roma people that if they come to Canada, they will be deported. Here is the sign below. We hope that Canada will take note of the recent Human Rights decision from Europe. The recent demonization of the Roma community has come on the heels of xenophobic remarks made by long-time Conservative Party activist Ezra Levant on Sun TV.

Family Status Discrimination: The Federal Court takes a stand on Childcare Issues for Workers

Canada’s Federal Court has recently issued two decisions finding a lack of consideration towards workers’ childare issues discrimination on the basis of ‘family status’. Both decisions were penned by The Honourable Leonard S. Mandamin.

First, on January 31, 2013, the Federal Court released  Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnstone, 2013 FC 113 (CanLII). Here, Ms. Fiona Johnstone complains of human rights discrimination at work due to family status. Johnstone argued that her employer, the Canadian Border Services Agency, “engaged in a discriminatory employment practice with respect to family status, specifically, in relation to her parental childcare obligations.”  Johnstone had been working rotating shifts and requested full-time, fixed day shifts  to accommodate childcare for her kids. The Employer’s policy prohibited fixed day shifts. Johnstone was therefore ineligible for benefits available to full-time employees.

The Court reasons, at paras 125-128:

[125]      Simply stated, any significant interference with a substantial parental obligation is serious. Parental obligations to the child may be met in a number of different ways. It is when an employment rule or condition interferes with an employee’s ability to meet a substantial parental obligation in any realistic way that the case for prima faciediscrimination based on family status is made out.

[126]      In Amselem the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a person’s freedom of religion is interfered with where the person demonstrates that he or she has a sincere religious belief and a third party interfered, in a manner that is non-trivial or not insubstantial, with that person’s ability to act in accordance with the belief.

[127]      The phrase “a substantial parental duty or obligation”equates with and establishes the same threshold as a sincere religious belief. Amselem.

[128]      In my view, the serious interference test as proposed by the Applicant is not an appropriate test for discrimination on the ground of family status. It creates a higher threshold to establish a prima faciecase on the ground of family status as compared to other grounds. Rather, the question to be asked is whether the employment rule interferes with an employee’s ability to fulfill her substantial parental obligations in any realistic way.

This decision is cited and further bolstered by a second decision on the same topic, released February 1, 2013.  In Canadian National Railway v. Seeley, 2013 FC 117 (CanLII) , the Federal Court dismisses an appeal against finding of discrimination on the basis of family status.  Denise Seeley was employed by CN as a freight train conductor. She was on lay-off and was recalled to report to a temporary work assignment to cover a major shortage in Vancouver, British Columbia. She advised she could not report to Vancouver because of childcare issues, as Vancouver was far away from her home in Jasper, Alberta. CN gave Ms. Seeley additional time, however, she did not report for work; as a result, CN terminated her employment.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal reinstated her employment, amongst other remedies, and CN appealed the decision. An important component of the decision is at para 78 where Mandamin suggests the following test in assessing whether there is discrimination on the basis of family status:

[78]          In trying to distil the principles the above cases represent, I would venture to suggest there are underlying questions one or the other has either raised or  addressed:

a.         does the employee have a substantial obligation to provide childcare for the child or children; in this regard, is the parent the sole or primary care giver, is the obligation substantial and one that goes beyond personal choice;

b.         are there realistic alternatives available for the employee to provide for childcare: has the employee had the opportunity to explore and has explored available options; and is there a workplace arrangement, process, or collective agreement available to the employee that may accommodate an employee’s childcare obligations and workplace obligations;

c.         does the employer conduct, practice or rule put the employee in the difficult  position of choosing between her (or his) childcare duties or the workplace obligations?

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that “the Tribunal’s finding that parental childcare obligations comes within the term “family status” in the Act.” Moreover, the finding  “was reasonable in keeping with the Supreme Court of Canada guidance in Dunsmuir,Khosa and Mowat.”

Langevin – Most popular case in Canada!

I am quite surprised I let this get by me. The top case in the list of top cases for 2012 is one I distributed to my French speaking friends, jokingly. Langevin, 2012 QCCS 613 (CanLII) is great. I am so proud that the top case on CanLII is in francais!  For those Anglos in the ROC (Rest of Canada) or elsewhere who want to know what all the fuss is about, here is an extremely unofficial translation from Google translate (I may fix it up sometime int he future, but this brutal rendering should give you a general idea:

 

 

Langevin

2012 QCCS 613

JM2364

 
SUPERIOR COURT

CANADA

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

DISTRICT

QUEBEC

No.:

200-05-019491-120

200-05-019492-128

DATE:

February 22, 2012

______________________________________________________________________

IN THE CHAIR

THE HONOURABLE

ALAIN MICHAUD, j.c.s.

______________________________________________________________________

SYLVIO LANGEVIN, […] St. Euphemia (Québec) […]

Petitioner

______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

______________________________________________________________________

[1] Sylvio Langevin claims ownership of the Earth [1]. In another case initiated on the same day, he claims that the planets Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, and the four large moons of Jupiter. [2]

[2] At the hearing, the applicant wishes to amend the second application to add its claims Neptune and Pluto, as well as the space between each planet across the galaxy. [3]

I – FACTS

[3] Although Mr. Langevin demand writing separate judgments for each of its requests, the Court is authorized to make a single judgment against two applications which raise the same arguments in the representation of property of the same nature : this is true in reading both handwritten queries, which is the full transcript in Annexes 1 and 2 of this judgment.

[4] On 27 December 2011, “by chance by causing me to clean up various documents in my closet …” [4], Mr. Langevin find newspaper articles providing some details about the planets Mercury and Jupiter [5] as well as observation missions NASA on several planets in the solar system.

[5] He sees a unique opportunity for these planets, and reports that he “thought of making a collection like others are a collection of hockey cards.” As the five planets and four moons are referred wanderers and they are part of the solar system [6], Mr. Langevin is certain that they have no owner.

[6] He is alone, and without even a respondent to his requests, because “if there was a respondent, it would be God, but it is not tangible and not invitable as respondent.”

[7] At the hearing, the amendment request permission to also claim ownership of Neptune and Pluto, as well as “all the space that is without oxygen and without gravity for objects between each planet the size of our galaxy … “[7], and this – he said to the audience -” to avoid any misunderstanding. “

[8] He explains this claim on the area, saying he learned that the Chinese were planning to send space stations in space: Mr. Langevin is not it form another city Chinese space above him.

***

[9] In the related case, the idea of ​​claiming ownership of the planet Earth, came the “07-01-12 around 18:30, I had to lose temperature and by chance I had the idea read some dictionary definitions … “[8], namely those words planet earth.

[10] Like the others, the planet Earth has no owner, “so it is obvious and beyond doubt it is a wandering star belonging to the solar system, certain that I rightfully as owner possession and administration (single) … “[9].

[11] Mr. Langevin said that three requests he would become the owner of nine planets, the Moon and the four satellites of Jupiter, for a total of fourteen planets.

[12] The third issue – it must be clear – is where Mr. Langevin has recently claimed ownership of Mars and the Moon. At our hearing, it is not known whether judgment was rendered in this case, nor has taken cognizance; officers of the civil court would have however stated that judgment had been pronounced against him. [10] He wants to learn at the same time he read the decisions on these two claims, “to challenge” he adds.

[13] Mr. Langevin said he is not a lawyer but a private citizen, he mentions, however, have a good experience in applications since the 2000s, indicating that these refer disputes between other four situations:

a) the fact that he fell into a trap of misinformation, as a breeding boar he had;

b) the fact that his brother [11] has sold his farm without administrator permission;

c) the fact that people in authority, for the Queen had been “six false psychologist” on it and have tried to “get to delusional”;

d) the fact that he discovered a coup government of Canada at war in Afghanistan.

[14] Mr. Langevin therefore relates have initiated 51 complaints against the Government of Quebec that led to a judgment declaring quarrelsome litigant in relation to the Attorney General of Quebec [QMP] [12]. After four or five other queries against the Government of Canada, he adds they have been declared vexatious litigant to place the Attorney General of Canada [PGC] [13].

[15] Mr. Langevin said wait for the right moment to set aside two decisions in question, which violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

II – ANALYSIS

[16] On the merits of the two claims here undertaken by Sylvio Langevin, it is not necessary to say more than what the judge wrote Étienne Parent December 19, 2011, in the folder to the planet Mars and the Moon “On its face, the request of the applicant has no legal basis and must be rejected” [14].

[17] The claim of the Earth is therefore rejected as to the other planets in the solar system.

III – THE BEHAVIOUR OF quarrelsome SYLVIO LANGEVIN

1 – The history of the applicant

[18] An inventory probably incomplete litigation initiated by the applicant indicates that it has undertaken since 2001 at least 29 action in the Superior Court, at the same time he spoke 12 times in the Court of Appeal, as well as 4 times in the Supreme Court of Canada.

[19] Among these disputes, Mr. Langevin continued QMP 12 times – an injunction or damages – for a total value of $ 74.5 million. He also used these two forms of redress by pursuing the PGC for a total value of $ 4 million original, by amendment, he has taken his claim for damages to more than a billion dollars.

[20] All the actions taken by Mr. Langevin and under six names or names of different presentations [15], were rejected and led to the formation of large bills of costs that have – pretty much – never been recovered by prosecutors and opposing parties.

[21] The two statements querulous – limited scope – imposed by judges Babin and Bélanger in 2008 and 2009, were initially dampened the enthusiasm of the applicant to undertake prosecution repeatedly. Mr. Langevin seems to have understood – as illustrated by the three cases revealed his interest in the planets – that the absence of respondents to its procedures to reduce her risk of being mean again a request for a declaration of querulous .

[22] It is here that the Court should intervene.

2 – The concept of querulous

[23] Justice Yves-Marie Morissette, then a professor at McGill University, became interested in the notion of quarrelsomeness, and reported in 2004 that the main characteristics associated jurisprudence vexatious litigants:

- First, the litigant vexatious demonstrated tenacity and narcissism;

- Second, the litigant vexatious manifests demand rather than defense;

- Third, the quarrelsome litigant vexatious appeals multiplies, including against officers of the court. It is not rare, in fact, that these procedures and complaints are directed against lawyers, court staff or even the judges personally, which are the subject of allegations of bias and ethics complaints;

- Fourth, the repetition of the same questions used by successive ampliatifs and looking for the same results despite the repeated failures of previous requests are frequent;

- Fifth, the legal arguments put forward by the litigant vexatious is reported both by their inventiveness and incongruity. They have a legal form, of course, but the limit of the rational;

- Sixth, the repeated failures and remedies exercised by the party querulous lead to more or less long-term inability to pay court costs and legal fees to which it is bound;

- Seventh, most decisions adverse, if not all, are appealed by the party querulous or requests are subject to revision or withdrawal;

- Finally, eighth, as already noted, the litigant vexatious is representing himself. [16]

[24] The same text mentions that the portrait is the French psychiatrist Mallet Sandrine this syndrome: “the querulous processive […] say that they have been wronged, their property was looted: they multiply the trial, appeal, refuse any conciliation suspect corruption of judges, bad faith or collusion of witnesses “. [17]

[25] In a decision very supported on the matter, the Chief Justice André Wery this study takes the judge Morissette and added:

As you can see, the problem is a querulous based on paranoid thinking that the beliefs of the person are disproportionate to the reality and the constant crusades from a judicial imaginary delirium. [18]

[26] Sections 84 and 85 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the Superior Court [19] have been adopted to counter the excesses of some citizens who abuse their right to sue:

84. Prohibited except by permission. If a person acts in a quarrelsome manner, that is to say, if it exercises its right to sue for excessive or unreasonable, the court may prohibit a demand for justice without prior authorization.

85. Order. The order is general or limited to one or more districts or against one or more persons. In extreme cases it can even prevent access to a courthouse.

[27] These provisions are in line with Article 4.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Articles 6 and 7 of the Civil Code, which expressly provide that a party can not be excessive or unreasonable, and must exercise his civil rights requirements of good faith.

[28] The Canadian judicial system is the envy of many other jurisdictions around the world, but – you might expect – it is expensive. As mentioned Judge Wery:

It should be used by litigants in a reasonable and responsible. You can not only use the judicial system to harass, intimidate or exhausted financially, psychologically or physically opponent. [20]

[29] Given these parameters, we must ask ourselves whether Sylvio Langevin behavior justifies the application of Articles 84 and 85 of the Regulation adopted under the general powers inherent in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Superior Court [21].

3 – The decision

[30] When the Court declares to have taken cases against 51 QMP, Sylvio Langevin apparent pride that appears difficult to reconcile with the objectives of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus Judge Babin its decision of 29 January 2008, shows off the many reasons for it to declare the applicant quarrelsome litigant, compared QMP [22]. Justice Bélanger will demonstrate the same querulous next year in light of established claims against the CMP this time [23].

[31] Now it has been declared vexatious litigant in the place of these two adversaries “natural” Mr. Langevin began today a new action sequence, using imagination to claim ownership of the planets in our solar system . Where will it end there?

[32] In reviewing the minutes of the first application of this kind of Mr. Langevin – one to Marc and the Moon – there is only twelve minutes of presentation to the applicant was sufficient to embarrass the judiciary significantly.

[33] The following two queries read – here reproduced as Appendices 1 and 2 – provides a demonstration of continuity in this disorder and contamination by the applicant of the judiciary, which will last until the status of Mr. quarrelsome litigant Langevin has not been widespread.

[34] Similarly, the applicant’s statements reported in the first chapter illustrate this judgment is no claim to the test, and that all goods stray or ownerless apparent – material or immaterial – are likely to be a subsequent collection by it.

[35] It is of course unacceptable that Mr. Langevin uses the justice system inappropriately in this way wasting time and energy of the various judicial actors, while all litigants need full access to these valuable resources .

[36] On a more special for its own protection, the Court can not tolerate more than the applicant exhausted his meager resources to pay legal stamps associated with the opening of numerous lawsuits, or bills of costs that are inevitably they close: hundreds of thousands of dollars already owed by Mr. Langevin under this head.

[37] In these circumstances, the Tribunal has no hesitation in concluding that the applicant meets behavior by the main features of the querulous, therefore, the decision is required to expand its quarrelsome litigant status to all remedies it may undertake in the Superior Court of Quebec.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[38] REJECTS two claims taken by the applicant in cases numbered 200-05-019491-120 and 200-05-019492-128;

[39] DECLARES quarrelsome litigant the applicant Sylvio Langevin, Langevin Martin alias, alias Martin Sylvio Langevin, aka Martin Sylvio Langevin, aka Martin (Sylvio) Langevin, aka Sylvio (Martin) Langevin;

[40] NO introduce the applicant or deposit, directly or indirectly, any proceedings – whether to institute proceedings or during the proceedings – the clerk of the Superior Court of all Courts of the Province of Quebec, unless the prior written permission of the Chief Justice, the Associate Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, or any other judge designated by one of them ;

[41] NO clerks, civil servants and judicial officers of the province of Quebec to receive, stamp, issue, serve, save in the scroll, swear or register on the role of hearing any proceedings which have been instituted, or initiated prepared by the applicant, with the exception of those that have been previously authorized in writing, in accordance with the preceding paragraph;

[42] ORDERS the Clerk of the Superior Court of the District of Quebec to make the meaning of this judgment to the applicant Sylvio Langevin;

[43] AUTHORIZED service of this judgment to the clerks and bailiffs of the Province of Quebec, by fax;

[44] ORDERS the provisional execution of this judgment, notwithstanding appeal;

[45] TOLL given the particular circumstances of the case.

__________________________________

ALAIN MICHAUD, j.c.s.

Sylvio Langevin

[…] St. Euphemia (Quebec)

For himself

Date of Hearing:

January 13, 2012

APPENDIX 1

(Full transcript)

Canada

Province of Quebec

District of Quebec

No 200-05-019491-120

1. Hello! Honorable superior court judge

2. The facts

27-12-2011 to by chance by causing me to clean up various documents in my closet, I found two newspaper clippings and Press headline that reads as follows:

A. Mercury reveals:

B. En route to Jupiter;

WOW: I had to get your hands on a real treasure! or details spacial exploration of NASA since the year 1970 ± discover more Italian astronomer Galileo …. you understand!

It’s obvious I made an immediate connection to the effect that my previous folder 200-05-019484-117 Judge made the decision on 16-12-11 and I am sure that his judgment promised be made before the end of January 2012 will be favorable to me giving me permission to become owning possession and administration (only) of the planet Mars and my oral amendment to the hearing of the moon (the earth);

I said yes internally Cest Ca present today with my request I just added the other planet and moon the other, and I’ll be happy human possessed the complete collection of spacial exploration was achieved and achievable and even their wholes the exploitable surface located accesible loan us the earth;

3. Today with my present application I want the Tribunal’s permission to become owning possession and administration (only) of the planets and the moon detail as follows:

A. the planet Mercury;

B. Venus;

C. the planet Jupiter;

D. the planet Saturn;

E. the planet Uranus

F. 4 large moon and Jupiter

4. Law.

A. I heard an applicant alone without respondent;

B. the planets Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and 4 large moons of Jupiter, she ons no owner, so it is obvious and beyond doubt wholes five planets and 4 large moons of Jupiter they all come back to me right to possession as owner and administration (single) following my request legitimate authorization of the Court Article 885 – CpcQ;

C. principals and two law articles for stewardship me 9 properties are sections 1 and 947 of the Civil Code of Québec;

D. I denounce a situation of force majeure in effect: on 12-12-2011 at 11:00 at the Palais de justice de Montmagny, (my district of Montmagny) the clerk Johanne Lamarre and director François Paré ons they refused mouvrir a civil matter of authorization art. 885 C.P.C.Q. either take my previous request for March and the moon, so I called 911 and SQ 2 policemen Gaudrau Choinard and came to his transplant result nothing changed its continued their refusal, that I was obliged to do in Quebec n / a 200-05-019484-117;

So Montmagny refused my previous query, then sure they would refuse my request for this today is similar, so I am required force majeure forced me to assert the right to act in the District Quebec Thank you!

E. I denounce my farm use parental donnation my mother and my father legitimate act notarized 93159 is in crisis since October 28, 2004 there is continuity of refusing to admit my possession administration by Her Majesty the Queen;

Result in my letter box areas and a number of civic door 124 in his prison cell in the basement of the courthouse Montmagny;

So Honorable judge to ensure my present application filed your judgment Quebec Civil Registry or I’ll take possession in person at the right time;

F. I have received a gift denounces Thank you! to my previous request n / 200-05-019484-117 the Civil Registry of Quebec 12-12-11 Indeed the Clerk Claudia Bellavance exempt from paying my $ 116.00 and the Director of the Civil Registry Brassard approved acsepter verbal before me and judge my hearing a presentation on the 16-12-11 acsepter also approved by me confirming that free report had no impact on the validity of my request for the future. Thank you!

Tomorrow’s energy so I hope (to qualify) has the same free gift at the same $ 116.00 for the opening of my civil record this application;

X

 
I’ll check has confirmed the appropriate box with an X below dessou:

                     The Civil Registry me a second gift is exempt from paying me $ 116.00 for the opening of my file this application …. Thank you!

 
                     The clerk made me pay the price of $ 116.00 for the opening of my civil record my present application;

5. I included this request to my attached the 2 pieces below dessou;

A. Cutting the paper entitled Mercury Press unfolds;

B. Cutting the newspaper La Presse entitled En route to Jupiter;

6. My present application is well founded in fact and law;

7. For this reason, the Court should present to welcome my request, thanks!

8. order by the Tribunal welcomes this request and give permission to the applicant art. 885 C.P.C.Q. be the owner of possession and administration (only) of the planet Mercury, so Mercury becomes the property legally and legally a kind of extension of the planet earth, then the valid laws of the land they apply to the management of including mercury especially art. 1 and 947 CCQ Whereas the applicant is a current owner Quebec Canada;

… [Paragraphs 9 to 13: findings identical to those of paragraph 8, but this time for Venus (9), Jupiter (10) Saturn (11), Uranus (12) and the four large moons of Jupiter (13)] …

14. The all without charge. Thank you!

St. Euphemia this Jan. 5, 2012

Sylvio Langevin

applicant and lawyer personally

APPENDIX 2

(Full transcript)

Canada

Province of Quebec

District of Quebec

No 200-05-019492-128

1. Hello! Superior court Judge

2. The facts:

07-01-2012 to the 18:30, I had to lose temperature and by chance I had the idea to read some dictionary definition that this detail as follows:

A. Planet wandering star, the earth is part of a body system called planet, see attached Exhibit A;

B. Earth belongs to the solar system inhabited by man, see attached Exhibit B;

3. The right:

A. I heard an applicant (only) with no respondent;

B. Planet Earth has no owner, so CEST obvious and beyond doubt its a wandering star belonging to the solar system, certain that I was rightful possession as owner and administration (single) following my request legitimate authorization of the Tribunal art. C.P.C.Q. 885;

Note: cepandant I want to add a safety condition good understanding which will be applied; assumed that I used on the surface of my planet earth is my floor my background, my subsoil, I am required to obtain permission Tribunal art. 885 CPCQ to approve my / me is the project (s) by judgment to make sure that I not violate / law (s) set (s) of human rights ons of various acquired and they lived there have the same temperature has the right to appeal as a respondent;

C. and 2 principals law article for my planet earth stewardship are sections 1 and 947 of the CCQ;

D. I denounced a situation of force majeure in effect: on 12-12-2011 at 11:00 at the Palais de justice de Montmagny, (my district of Montmagny) the clerk Johanne Lamarre and director François Paré ons they refused mouvrir a civil matter of authorization art. 885 CPCQ either take my previous request for March and the moon, so i called 911 and SQ 2 policemen Gaudreau and his Choinard came to his transplant outcome not changed their continued refusal, that I was obliged to do in Quebec n / a 200-05-019484-117;

So Montmagny refused my previous query so sure they would refuse my request today this is a similar, therefore I am obliged force majeure having to prove me right to act in the district of Quebec; Thanks !

E. I denounce my farm use parental donnation my mother and my father legitimate act notarized 93159 is in crisis since October 28, 2004;

there is continuity of refusing to admit my possession and administration by Her Majesty the Queen in my box result rural letter and my door civic number 124 in his prison cell in the basement of the courthouse Montmagny;

So Honorable judge to ensure my present application filed your judgment Quebec Civil Registry or I’ll take possession in person at the right time;

F. I denounce me for two cases before 200-05-019484-117 also 200-05-019491-120, I have not paid cétais free to open two files to me Civil Registry of Quebec, so today I ‘ I hope to have her third gift is free to open my file of my present petition, and I denounce below dessou

 
                                                – Thank you Free! 0. $

 

                                                – I paid;

4. I included this request to my attached the 2 pieces below dessou;

A. Dictionary definition of the word planet

B. Dictionary definition of the word earth

5. My present application is well founded in fact and law;

6. For this reason: the Court should welcome to my present application; Thank you!

7. Order by the Tribunal welcomes this request and give permission to the applicant art. 885 CPCQ to be the owner, possession and administration (only) of the planet earth, then the valid laws of the land apply to the management especially the art. 1 and 947 CCQ whereas the current owner requesting its a Quebec Canada; cepandant used for the floor, the bottom and the subsoil of the planet (earth) to do a / project (s) the various takes another request made by owner permission of the court art. 885 CPCQ to have a judgment which has the effect of respected place acquired rights of humans who lived there at the same temperature it is possible to have a / respondents will have the right to speak for or against?; the project;

8. Thank you all free!

            St. Euphemia the January 9, 2012

            Sylvio Langevin

            applicant and

            lawyer personally

————————————————– ——————————

[1] File 200-05-019492-128.

[2] folder 200-05-019491-120.

[3] Paragraph 3b of the document “Amendment to my request” to file 200-05-019491-120.

[4] Paragraph 2 of the application, the file 200-05-019491-120 (full transcript).

[5] Parts A and B produced 200-05-019491-120 file.

[6] According to the definition of planet, appended to the application on file 200-05-019492-128.

[7] Note 3 (full transcript).

[8] Paragraph 2 of the application, the file 200-05-019492-128 (full transcript).

[9] Section 3 B of the application, the file 200-05-019492-128 (full transcript).

[10] Judgment was delivered on 19 December 2011 by Judge Stephen Parent, dismissing the plaintiff to file 200-05-019484-117.

[11] This brother would bare owner of a farm of which the applicant is a director.

[12] Decision of 29 January 2008 Judge Jacques Babin, folder 300-17-000025-070.

[13] Decision of 11 September 2009 by Judge Dominique Bélanger, folder 300-17-000042-083.

[14] Paragraph 1 of the judgment of 19 December 2011, on file 200-05-019484-117.

[15] The applicant’s complaints are taken most often by the name of Martin or the Sylvio, but also by Martin Sylvio, Sylvio Martin, Martin (Sylvio) or Sylvio (Martin).

[16] Yves-Marie Morissette, “Abuse of rights, querulous and unrepresented party”, [2004] 49 McGill LJ p. 23, para. 8.

[17] Ibid, para. 9.

[18] v. Barreau du Québec. Srougi, 2007 QCCS 685 (CanLII), 2007 QCCS 685, para. 24, the passage is Charles Meunier, The querulous: The Haunting of our courts, Reporters Associés, p. 2, quoting Dr. Gilbert Pinard.

[19] R.R.Q., 1981, c. C-25, r. 8.

[20] Id by. 15.

[21] Art. 46 and 47 C.p.c.

[22] See in particular the reasons set out in paragraphs 10-29 of the decision (note 12).

[23] See in particular the reasons set out in paragraphs 13-30 of the decision (note 13).