Vexatious Litigant Extraordinaire

"You're bringing back bad memories now. This is how it all started: the disputes, challenges, lawsuits."
Ted Stathopoulos, president, Concordia University Faculty Association

"I was extremely lucky to have received full moral support of my family during all these years, and it would be totally inappropriate for me to ask any of them to spend money on me, especially taken into consideration that my wife and children are not financially at ease at all."
Valery Fabrikant, former Concordia University professor, convicted murderer

Twenty-one years ago, the shocking news that a professor at Concordia University had gone berserk, and in a fit of paranoid delusion shot to death four university colleagues. He was well known within the institution for his aggressive crankiness. But it is highly unlikely that any of his colleagues would ever have imagined that the man would embark on a killing spree out of a sense of outrage that colleagues were colluding against his position within the university.

This is a man whose dissatisfaction with life was likely launched in infancy, feeling himself continually undervalued, that conspiracies were afoot to cheat him out of his entitlements, that jealous competitors were out to victimize him. And he wouldn't stand for it. Becoming increasingly assertive in  his conviction that it was him, alone, against a hostile world. During his murder trial, Fabrikant fired lawyers to eventually represent himself.

Mike McLaughlin/Allen McInnis/Postmedia News/Files Artist rendition of Valery Fabrikant

 

During the trial his behaviour was so aberrantly disturbing that he was cited for six contempt of court events reflecting his belligerent behaviour. While incarcerated he has launched innumerable suits, just as he had indulged himself in spurious lawsuits before the horrendous event of 1992 when he went on that infamous shooting spree. Federal Court rules stipulate a $50 fee be paid for filing a notice of appeal.

It is highly likely that Mr. Fabrikant has been an ugly bully all of his life. And that his family suffered his tantrums, accusations and meanness of spirit. It is entirely likely that they consider it a blessing that he can no longer telephone them three times daily, releasing them from the constant presence in their life of a man who likely oppressed and disturbed the flow of their lives. One imagines them to have lived in fear of his next volatile reaction to any given event, throughout their relationship.

Mr. Fabrikant, a few weeks back, won an appeal for the correctional institute to supply him with a second winter jacket, which Quebec's Archambault Institution had refused to do. This time around he is preparing to launch another suite, and has convinced a Federal Court of Appeal judge to waive the $50 court application fee, pleading poverty, to enable him to mount another court appeal.

"Jail food is to a great degree inedible, and must be supplemented by purchases from canteen", he informed the court. As well, a telephone call to his family costs him $.57 for each call. While he used to call family three times daily, he has curtailed those calls because of the expense incurred. He is given $52.50 every two weeks through his "Level D" pay schedule, the lowest grade for inmates.

Correction Services Canada metes out that rate to inmates who "participate in a work assignment but refuse to participate in any other program assignment specified in their correctional plan."

There are deductions from that payment representing the maintenance of inmate telephones and contributions to the Inmate Welfare Fund, and with 22% deducted toward the cost of food and accommodation; trifling amounts obviously considered symbolic in nature rather than fulfilling any real source of payment representing the true cost to the system of incarceration. Yet Judge Stratas accepted Mr. Fabrikant's plea for fee exemption.

His succession of vexatious suits are recognized for the nuisance value that they represent, and have been rejected by a number of courts; Quebec Superior, Quebec Court of Appeal, Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada. He requires, as a result, permission from the chief justice of Quebec Superior Court before proceedings may be instigated in Quebec.

It seems completely unreasonable that a man obviously not of sound mind, yet considered normal enough despite having murdered four men and himself suffering no crisis of conscience, is permitted to be adamant about his rights, receiving concession after concession.

Heidi Illingworth of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is of the firm opinion that consequential complaints from inmates should be disallowed, and it is hard to argue with that point of view. "I think it is unfortunate that our system allows someone to bring so many court challenges and complaints. It  highlights a pretty big problem in our system", she asserts.

And that is abundantly clear.