Introduction — The Measure of a Free Society

The measure of a free society is not how it treats the comfortable, but how it treats the inconvenient. In Quebec, the Carby‑Samuels case — now in the appeal stage — has become a litmus test for whether the state, through its lawyers, can silence those who allege racial profiling by police.

At the heart of the appeal is a startling request made by Gatineau’s Montreal-based counsel, Me Mathieu Daponte: that Mr. Carby‑Samuels be declared a vexatious litigant and prohibited not only from initiating further court proceedings, but also from filing complaints with the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (CDPDJ). In other words, to bar him from even using the province’s own human rights mechanisms to report police misconduct.

The justification offered in court — that it was “not nice” for Ms. Samuels to have sought a CDPDJ review of a racial profiling complaint — is as subjective as it is alarming. “Not nice” is not a legal principle. It is not a constitutional threshold. It is, at best, a personal sentiment — and at worst, a pretext for eroding fundamental rights.

I. The Case in Context

The Carby‑Samuels matter began as a challenge to alleged racial profiling by Gatineau police. Like many complainants, Mr. Carby‑Samuels turned to the CDPDJ — Quebec’s human rights commission — for review. This is not a fringe tactic; it is the very mechanism the province has established to investigate discrimination and protect citizens from abuses of power.

The CDPDJ exists precisely because ordinary people cannot always afford to litigate in court, and because human rights violations often require specialized investigation. It is meant to be accessible, impartial, and insulated from political pressure.

Yet in this case, the city’s legal strategy has been to argue not only that the specific allegations lack merit, but that the complainant himself should be stripped of the right to use the system at all. This is not merely a defence against a claim — it is an attempt to close the door on all future claims, regardless of their validity.

II. What “Vexatious Litigant” Really Means — and How It’s Changing

The label “vexatious litigant” is not a casual insult; it is a serious legal designation. In Quebec and other jurisdictions, it is supposed to be used sparingly, and only against litigants who knowingly pursue hopeless cases for no purpose other than to drain the resources of opposing parties and the court.

Historically, the designation was a safeguard — a last resort to protect the justice system from being clogged by bad‑faith actors. It was never intended to punish people for bringing forward claims that are inconvenient, controversial, or politically sensitive.

But recent case law suggests a troubling shift: the designation is now, in some instances, being used as a weapon to silence critics irrespective of the substance of their cases. Instead of being a shield for the courts, it risks becoming a sword for those in power — a way to pre‑emptively disqualify dissenters from even accessing the mechanisms of justice.

III. The “Not Nice” Problem

The phrase “not nice” may sound trivial, but its use in a legal context is deeply revealing. It suggests that the standard for silencing a complainant is not whether their claim is baseless, but whether it causes discomfort to those in power.

This is a dangerous shift. The law is supposed to protect the right to speak truth to power, not to shield public officials from the emotional inconvenience of being held accountable.

If “not nice” becomes a legitimate reason to bar someone from making complaints, then any whistleblower, activist, or citizen who challenges authority could be silenced on the grounds that their actions were unpleasant for the subject of the complaint.

IV. The Broader Stakes for Police Accountability

The implications for police oversight are profound. Read more on Zedebooks.com.