Chris McCormack

The moving party sought a panel review of a decision dismissing her motion for an extension of time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court had previously dismissed her appeal of five Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, agreeing with the motion judge that despite meeting the first four factors for an extension of time, the justice of the case weighed against granting leave because the proposed appeal lacked merit and general public importance.

The appellant, Ahmad Mohammad, appealed an order dismissing his underlying action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered dismissing the appeal itself as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

Despite the appellant's assertion of psychiatric conditions affecting his understanding, the court noted his extensive history of similar proceedings, some previously terminated under Rule 2.1.

The court found no arguable basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision, which identified multiple defects in the original action, including allegations subject to absolute privilege, a rambling and incomprehensible statement of claim, requests for unavailable relief, and rhetorical questions indicative of a frivolous claim.

The appeal was deemed to exhibit the same indicia of abuse.

The plaintiff, Ahmad Mohammad, commenced an action against Mohamed Bakr.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considered dismissing the action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

After reviewing the plaintiff's submissions, the court dismissed the action, finding that some allegations were protected by absolute privilege, the claim was rambling and difficult to understand, much of the relief sought was unavailable in a civil action, and the pleading contained rhetorical questions, all hallmarks of a frivolous and vexatious proceeding.

The action also overlapped significantly with a previously dismissed action by the same plaintiff.