The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has declared a law school graduate a vexatious litigant after her fourth failed attempt to take action against the University of Windsor for including her failed first year on her official transcript.
Anica Visic had attempted to add the university as a respondent to an application alleging human rights violations by the Law Society of Upper Canada, stemming from the regulator’s decision to extend her articling requirement and to institute a good character review before she could be called to the bar.
But in a decision released last week, HRTO vice chairperson Ena Chadha refused to add the university, dismissed the application against the LSUC, and granted the university’s request to label Visic a vexatious litigant with respect to the issue of her official transcript.
“I conclude that the applicant’s repeated attempts to pursue the same allegations against the University about her official transcript have reached the point of abuse of process. As such, I determine that a vexatious litigant order is necessary to prevent the applicant from initiating further human rights applications or making requests against the University and its agents with respect to the matter of her official transcript,” Chadha wrote.
“If the applicant seeks leave to commence a future application involving the University regarding the matter of her official transcript or makes a request to add the University to another application in relation to the official transcript, written submissions must be included with her materials outlining why the application or the request is intended as a legitimate assertion of her Code rights, is not intended to vex the University or its representatives, and will not result in an abuse of process.”
Visic failed two courses in her first year at Windsor in 2000, and was told her studies would be discontinued, according to Chadha’s decision. Visic was granted readmission to first year on medical grounds in 2002, and went on to graduate in 2005.
In 2005, when she discovered the university was including her failed grades on her official transcript, Visic launched a human rights complaint against the school and three professors, which was ultimately dismissed as out of time. Another similar complaint against the university was dismissed in 2010 by the HRTO.
Last year, the HRTO dismissed another human rights complaint by Visic, this time against her articling firm, after her principal requested to see her official transcript. During a reconsideration of that decision, the HRTO again refused to add the University of Windsor as a party.
Despite her most recent failure at the HRTO, Visic’s civil action against the university, launched in 2005, remains outstanding. Her good character hearing at the LSUC is due to start on Monday.
Anica Visic had attempted to add the university as a respondent to an application alleging human rights violations by the Law Society of Upper Canada, stemming from the regulator’s decision to extend her articling requirement and to institute a good character review before she could be called to the bar.
But in a decision released last week, HRTO vice chairperson Ena Chadha refused to add the university, dismissed the application against the LSUC, and granted the university’s request to label Visic a vexatious litigant with respect to the issue of her official transcript.
“I conclude that the applicant’s repeated attempts to pursue the same allegations against the University about her official transcript have reached the point of abuse of process. As such, I determine that a vexatious litigant order is necessary to prevent the applicant from initiating further human rights applications or making requests against the University and its agents with respect to the matter of her official transcript,” Chadha wrote.
“If the applicant seeks leave to commence a future application involving the University regarding the matter of her official transcript or makes a request to add the University to another application in relation to the official transcript, written submissions must be included with her materials outlining why the application or the request is intended as a legitimate assertion of her Code rights, is not intended to vex the University or its representatives, and will not result in an abuse of process.”
Visic failed two courses in her first year at Windsor in 2000, and was told her studies would be discontinued, according to Chadha’s decision. Visic was granted readmission to first year on medical grounds in 2002, and went on to graduate in 2005.
In 2005, when she discovered the university was including her failed grades on her official transcript, Visic launched a human rights complaint against the school and three professors, which was ultimately dismissed as out of time. Another similar complaint against the university was dismissed in 2010 by the HRTO.
Last year, the HRTO dismissed another human rights complaint by Visic, this time against her articling firm, after her principal requested to see her official transcript. During a reconsideration of that decision, the HRTO again refused to add the University of Windsor as a party.
Despite her most recent failure at the HRTO, Visic’s civil action against the university, launched in 2005, remains outstanding. Her good character hearing at the LSUC is due to start on Monday.
