Lavigne v. Pare et al., (2015) 481 F.T.R. 83 (FC)

• Judge: Martineau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 29, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 481 F.T.R. 83 (FC);2015 FC 631

Lavigne v. Pare (2015), 481 F.T.R. 83 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.037

Robert Lavigne (plaintiff) v. Michel Pare, Jocelyne Cantin, Lucie Veillette, Melanie Matte, Danielle Desrosiers, Jacinthe Marleau, David Langtry and Canadian Human Rights Commission and Attorney General of Canada (defendants)

(T-1632-13; 2015 FC 631)

Indexed As: Lavigne v. Pare et al.

Federal Court

Martineau, J.

May 13, 2015.

Summary:

Lavigne sued the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), the Acting Chief Commissioner, some of the CHRC employees and the Attorney General of Canada. The defendants moved for a declaration that Lavigne was a vexatious litigant and the present action constituted a vexatious proceeding. The defendants also sought orders prohibiting Lavigne from filing any further proceedings before the court without having previously obtained the court's authorization; instructing the registry not to accept for filing any further proceedings by Lavigne without having previously obtained the court's authorization; and dismissing the action without the possibility of amendment. The defendants also requested a lump sum of $4,600 in lieu of assessed costs.

The Federal Court allowed the defendants' motion and granted the requested relief.

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process (incl. abuse of process by relitigation) - Lavigne, on his own behalf, sued the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), the Acting Chief Commissioner, some of the CHRC employees and the Attorney General of Canada - The defendants moved for a declaration that Lavigne was a vexatious litigant and the present action constituted a vexatious proceeding (Federal Courts Act, s. 40(1)) - The defendants asserted that Lavigne had shown a long and persistent history of abuse of the judicial system by filing at least 18 applications or actions over the last 20 years, many of which were attempts to relitigate the same issues, and by systematically appealing decisions that were unfavourable to him up to the Supreme Court of Canada without success - They asserted that the present action was a vexatious proceeding which was attempting to relitigate the question of the CHRC's jurisdiction and which was reproducing allegations already found by the court to be without merit - Moreover, Lavigne had made, in a number of files, unsubstantiated allegations of scandalous or improper behaviour against the opposing counsel or the court - He had also failed to pursue litigation in a timely manner and had voluntarily failed to abide by the Rules and court orders - While he had been ordered to pay the Crown a total of more than $22,000 in costs for several of his failed claims since 1996, he had only paid $1,150 - The Federal Court allowed the defendants' motion - An order under s. 40(1) was necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and to protect the court and potential defendants from frivolous litigation - Bad faith or vindictiveness was not required to grant a s. 40(1) order - The lengthy judicial history clearly demonstrated that Lavigne showed many characteristics of a vexatious litigant - In the exercise of the court's inherent power to control its process and consider the discretion vested in the court by rules 47, 53 and 221, the court dismissed the present action without any possibility of amendment, as it was vexatious and otherwise constituted an abuse of process - It was an attempt to relitigate an issue already decided - The court awarded the defendants a lump sum of $4,600 in lieu of assessed costs.

Practice - Topic 46

Actions - Commencement of - Bars - Vexatious litigant - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Practice - Topic 1005

Parties - Parties unrepresented by counsel - Vexatious litigant - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Practice - Topic 5370

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Frivolous or vexatious actions - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Practice - Topic 7117

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Lump sum in lieu of taxed costs - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Cases Noticed:

Minister of National Revenue v. Olympia Interiors Ltd. et al. (2004), 323 N.R. 191; 2004 FCA 195, refd to. [para. 3].

Lavigne v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) et al. (1998), 229 N.R. 205; 1998 CanLII 7959 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al. (2003), 313 N.R. 84; 189 B.C.A.C. 161; 309 W.A.C. 161; 2003 SCC 71, refd to. [para. 8].

Thibodeau v. Air Canada et al. (2007), 375 N.R. 195; 2007 FCA 115, refd to. [para. 8].

Wilson v. Revenue Canada (2006), 305 F.T.R. 250; 2006 FC 1535, refd to. [para. 13].

Minister of National Revenue v. Olympia Interiors Ltd. et al. (2001), 209 F.T.R. 182; 2001 FCT 859, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 40(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Robert Lavigne, on his own behalf, for the plaintiff;

Erin Morgan and Caroline Laverdière, for the defendants, Canadian Human Rights Commission and Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendants, Canadian Human Rights Commission and Attorney General of Canada.

This motion was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on April 29, 2015, by Martineau, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons on May 13, 2015.