Date: 20211104

Docket: T-1119-21

Citation: 2021 FC 1174

Ottawa, Ontario, November 4, 2021

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Rochester

BETWEEN:

GEORGE BASMADJI, PHD. SC. CHEMIST (SCIENTIST)

ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

UNDER S, 126(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

Plaintiff

and

CANADA & ONTARIO ATTORNEYS GENERAL

SALLY A. GOMERY

OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES

Defendants

ORDER AND REASONS

I. Overview

[1] On October 5, 2021, the Plaintiff, Mr. George Basmadji, filed a Notice of Motion returnable at General Sittings on October 13, 2021. In his Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff, who is self-represented, states that he seeks the following relief:

1. Reversing both decisions of [Justice] Angela Furlanetto dated August 20 & Sept. 21, 2021;

2. Enforcing the plaintiff’s Constitutional Right (i.e. s 15 of the Charter “equality Right”);

3. Granting judgment for default of defense.

[2] The Plaintiff’s Motion Record, set out the ground of the motion as follows:

1. Failure to enforce The Constitution (i.e. All judges must comply with the Constitution);

2. Failure to enforce rule 210 of the federal court (i.e. Motion for default of defense);

3. Both [Justice] Angela Furlanetto’s decisions should not have been made.

[3] For the reasons that follow, this motion is dismissed. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any basis whatsoever that would entitle him to the requested relief. Justice Furlanetto’s Order dated September 21, 2021 [Order] struck the Statement of Claim without leave to amend, on the basis that, among other things, it was vexatious in content and an abuse of the Court’s process. Justice Furlanetto found that the Statement of Claim was an attack on the decision of Justice Gomery of the Ontario Superior Court in which Justice Gomery dismissed a claim by the Plaintiff for being frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process and not permitted on the basis that the Plaintiff had previously been declared a vexatious litigant under s 140 of the Court of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c 43.

[4] The Plaintiff, in seeking to “reverse” Justice Furlanetto’s Order, is simply seeking to relitigate matters that have previously been decided. I find this motion to be wholly without merit, vexatious in nature and an abuse of the Court’s process.

[5] As shall be explained in detail below, this Court, along with its Registry, have spent a considerable amount of time and resources on the Plaintiff’s frivolous and vexatious filings. Every moment spent on the Plaintiff’s frivolous and vexatious filings is a moment that is unavailable to a deserving litigant. Consequently, and among other things, I am choosing to write a widely accessible Order and Reasons rather than a less-accessible order. This Court wants the judges and Prothonotaries in the Federal Courts system and the judges and judicial officers in the courts of other jurisdictions to be aware of the actions of the Plaintiff in these proceedings and in the other proceedings that the Plaintiff has filed in this Court. In doing so, I am guided by the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Virgo v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 167 [Virgo], where the Federal Court of Appeal chose to write widely accessible reasons, rather than a speaking order, in order to (i) give public notice to the individuals at issue that severe consequences can follow should they fail to comply with court orders, particularly vexatious litigant orders, and (ii) ensure that the judges and Prothonotaries in the Federal Courts system and the judges and judicial officers in other jurisdictions’ courts were aware that a strong warning had been given.

II. Background

[6] The Plaintiff filed the present proceedings on July 16, 2021, against the Defendants, the Attorney General of Canada [AG Canada], Justice Sally A. Gomery [Justice Gomery], the Attorney General of Ontario [AG Ontario], and the Ottawa Police Services.

[7] The style of cause in the Statement of Claim identifies the Plaintiff as “George Basmadji, PhD. Sc. Chemist (Scientist) Acting on behalf of the Canadian Government under s 126(2) of the Criminal Code”. I note that at no point in these proceedings has the Plaintiff established any authority to act on behalf of the Canadian Government. Justice Furlanetto, in the Order, considered that the Plaintiff was acting on his own behalf. I find the same to be true with respect to the present motion.

[8] In a three-page Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff claimed: (i) compensation for the Defendants’ alleged violation of s 15 of the Charter, (ii) a declaration that the Canadian parliamentary system is invalid, (iii) that criminal proceedings be launched against Justice Gomery for alleged criminal activity in relation to the Plaintiff’s proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court in file no. CV-21-86502, (iv) damages in the amount of $10 million, and (v) “special costs”.

[9] The Plaintiff makes a number of general allegations including that (i) the parliamentary system violates the scientific communities’ constitutional rights, (ii) scientific communities are unprotected in the Canadian parliamentary system, and (iii) “Lawyers & police constitute a criminal enterprise!” [Emphasis in original].

[10] The Plaintiff makes a number of sweeping allegations of bias and criminal wrongdoing against Justice Gomery, all of which appear to relate to Justice Gomery’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action commenced in the Ontario Superior Court against AG Canada, AG Ontario, named members of the “Municipal police”, “Ontario public guardian and trusty (sic)”, “Ontario police review director”, and other defendants, including two judges of the Ontario Court of Justice [Ontario Proceedings].

[11] I note, from a copy of the statement of claim in the Ontario Proceedings that has been filed in these proceedings, that the Plaintiff has previously made the same sweeping allegations concerning the Canadian parliamentary system, the legal profession and the police, as the ones in the Statement of Claim in the present proceedings reproduced in paragraph 9 above. In the statement of claim in the Ontario Proceedings, the Plaintiff also makes sweeping allegations of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the police, judges, counsel, and government bodies involved in prior legal proceedings with the Plaintiff.

[12] In a judgement dated June 21, 2021, Justice Gomery, in dismissing the Ontario Proceedings as frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of the court’s process, found as follows:

10. The statement of claim bears many of the hallmarks of typically abusive, frivolous or vexatious litigation identified in Gao v Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6497, at para. 15. This includes, but is not limited to, unusual punctuation and curious formatting, conclusory statements and argument, and the use of meaningless legal terminology. […]

11. the statement of claim consists of a litany of accusations against the police, judges, lawyers and government bodies involved in previous legal proceedings that went badly for Mr. Basmadji. Such attacks and attempts to relitigate past proceedings are again hallmarks of frivolous and vexatious proceedings.

12. The pleading is lengthy and rambling. It refers to many matters that are not justiciable. Most of the orders Mr. Basmadji seeks, such as an order compelling the police to obey him and a declaration that the Canadian Parliament is invalid, are obviously untenable. The claim for compensation for deliberate wrong acts could in principle give rise to a tenable cause of action. Most of the claim is, however, unintelligible. To the extent that it is intelligible, it largely consists of collateral attacks on final court orders.

[13] The Statement of Claim in the present proceedings contains similar, and in a number of instances identical, language to the statement of claim in the Ontario Proceedings.

[14] In dismissing the Ontario Proceedings, Justice Gomery noted that the Plaintiff had already been declared a vexatious litigant under s 140 of the Court of Justice Act, RSO 1990, C 43 by Justice Platana in an order dated March 15, 1996 [Vexatious Litigant Order]. A copy of the Vexatious Litigant Order was filed in the present proceedings. It orders that, among other things, no further proceedings be instituted by the Plaintiff, Mr. Basmadji, “generally”, and specifically against the named applicants, their counsel, and members of the judiciary, without leave.

[15] I note that in the Ontario Proceedings, Mr. Basmadji made submissions seeking a default judgment against the defendants and, as described by Justice Gomery in her judgment, “confirmation of the invalidity of Justice Platana’s order” being the Vexatious Litigant Order. The Plaintiff has sought similar relief in the present proceedings, both before Justice Furlanetto with respect to Justice Gomery’s judgment, and before me with respect to Justice Furlanetto’s Direction and Order. The Plaintiff has equally, and repeatedly, sought a default judgment against the Defendants in the present proceedings.

[16] The Defendant AG Canada, in responding to the present motion, has drawn the Court’s attention to Federal Court file number T-330-13 [2013-1 Proceedings]. In the 2013-1 Proceedings, the Plaintiff described himself in the style of cause as “G. Basmadji, Prosecutor on behalf of Federal gov. ss 126(2)”. I note that this is the same unfounded statement that the Plaintiff makes in the present proceedings. In the 2013-1 Proceedings, the Plaintiff filed a four-page statement of claim containing a litany of accusations of criminal conduct against the AG Canada, a lawyer, a property manager, three judges of the Federal Court, and Federal Court registry officer. The statement of claim is very similar in nature to the statement of claim in the Ontario Proceedings and the one in the present proceedings. On April 11, 2013, Justice Martineau granted the defendants’ motion under Rule 221 to have the statement of claim in the 2013-1 Proceedings struck out without leave to amend on the basis that it disclosed no cause of action and was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of process.

[17] It appears from the recorded entries in the 2013-1 Proceedings that, despite the statement of claim having been struck, no less than four Federal Court Justices and two Prothonotaries had to issue directions to the Court’s Registry to refuse further filings from the Plaintiff. Such filings included two separate motions for default judgment, a motion to set aside the order striking the claim and for default judgment, and notices of constitutional questions. By June 19, 2013, Prothonotary Tabib directed the Court’s Registry to “refuse for filing, without the need for a specific direction, all motions for default judgment that may be submitted by Mr. Basmadji in Court files T-330-13 and T-449-13.” On July 3, 2013, Justice Annis directed that the “Direction of Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer directing the Registry to refuse the filing of materials in respect of files T-330-13 and T-449-13 is extended to direct the Registry to refuse the filing of the Notice of Constitutional Questions on the same files.” On July 15, 2013, Justice Roy directed, in response to a further notice of constitutional question from the Plaintiff: “The Registry is directed to refuse for filing, without the need for a specific direction, all notices of constitutional question that may in future be submitted by Mr. Basmadji in Court files T-330-13 and T-449-13.”

[18] In parallel to the 2013-1 Proceedings, the Plaintiff had filed another statement of claim in the Federal Court under file T-449-13 [2013-2 Proceedings]. The statement of claim in the 2013-2 Proceedings is very similar to the statement of claim in the 2013-1 Proceedings, with the Plaintiff also purporting to act on behalf of the federal government under the Criminal Code. The defendants were counsel, law enforcement officers, a property manager and the residents of a residential building, the administrators of the registry of the Ontario Superior Court, and a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court. On May 14, 2013, Justice Bédard struck out the statement of claim without leave to amend and dismissed the action. As in the 2013-1 Proceedings, following the order of Justice Bédard, the Plaintiff repeatedly sought to file further motions and materials, necessitating directions to the Court’s Registry by a number of Judges and a Prothonotary.

[19] The Defendant AG Canada, in the context of the present motion, submits that this is not the first time that the Plaintiff commences “frivolous and vexatious proceedings, together with multiple incomprehensible and vexatious filings in relation thereto, [in] this Court”. Based on my review of the recorded entries for the 2013-1 and 2013-2 Proceedings, I agree with the Defendant AG Canada.

[20] I further note from the recorded entries that a similar pattern exists in a number of other Federal Court files involving the Plaintiff, namely (i) the Plaintiff files proceedings (an action or a judicial review), (ii) the proceedings are struck, (iii) the Plaintiff then files or seeks to file various motions or requests to “quash”, “reverse”, or relitigate decided matters, and (iv) the Federal Court’s scarce judicial and registry resources are then saddled with responding to these filings that are obviously untenable and devoid of any merit.

[21] By way of example, in Federal Court file T-1400-05, the Plaintiff filed a notice of application of judicial review that was struck by Prothonotary Tabib on September 26, 2005. At the same time, Prothonotary Tabib also declined the Plaintiff’s motion to strike the notice of appearance filed by the respondents in the matter. On October 13, 2005, Justice MacKay declined to hear a motion to appeal Prothonotary Tabib’s decision not to strike the respondents’ notice of appearance. On October 17, 2005, Justice Noël refused to permit a motion to quash Prothonotary Tabib’s and Justice MacKay’s direction to be filed. On October 25, 2005, Justice Mactavish dealt with a notice of motion seeking an order “reversing and redressing the lower court abusive decisions”. The very next day, Justice Mactavish dealt with yet another motion record that the Plaintiff sought to file. On November 1, 2005, Justice Phelan directed that yet another motion seeking to overturn the decisions of Prothonotary Tabib and the directions of Justice MacKay was devoid of any likelihood of success and should not be heard. On November 21, 2005, Justice Hansen directed that two notices for constitutional questions would not be heard as the underlying notice of application had been struck out. Following Justice Hansen’s direction, the Plaintiff sought to file materials a further five times. The final direction was issued by Justice Martineau on December 5, 2005.

[22] On January 6, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a notice of motion with the Federal Court of Appeal to extend the time to appeal Justice Martineau’s direction dated December 5, 2005. The Federal Court of Appeal, in file number 06-A-1, dismissed the motion to extend the time, and then dismissed a further motion to set aside the dismissal, then directed the Registry not to accept the Plaintiff’s notice of a constitutional question for filing, and finally directed the Registry not to accept the Plaintiff’s further filings in the matter. On June 22, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal.

[23] In summary, a number of files before this Court have followed the pattern described in paragraph 20, namely T-1400-5, T-889-07, T-1534-12, T-330-13, T-449-13, and the present matter.

III. Direction of Justice Furlanetto issued August 20, 2021

[24] In the motion presently before this Court, the Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to “reverse” the direction of Justice Furlanetto issued on August 20, 2021 [Direction]. On August 19, 2021, the Plaintiff sought to file a motion for default judgment. At the time the Plaintiff sought to file the motion, the Defendants AG Ontario, Justice Gomery, and AG Canada, had filed motions pursuant to Rules 369 and 221(1)(a), (c) and (f) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [Federal Courts Rules] for an order striking out the Statement of Claim in its entirely without leave to amend on the basis that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

[25] Justice Furlanetto, in the Direction, noted the principle set out in Bruce v John Northway & Son Ltd [1962] OWN 150 that such a motion for default cannot be brought by the Plaintiff while the Defendants’ earlier motions to strike were pending. Justice Furlanetto further noted that to the extent the Plaintiff’s motion sought a default judgment in the Ontario Proceedings, such relief is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, Justice Furlanetto directed the Court’s Registry to remove the proposed motion from the Court file pursuant to Rule 74 of the Federal Courts Rules.

IV. The Order of Justice Furlanetto dated September 21, 2021

[26] In addition to seeking to “reverse” the Direction, the Plaintiff also seeks to “reverse” the Order of Justice Furlanetto dated September 21, 2021. As noted above, the Defendants had filed motions pursuant to Rules 369 and 221(1)(a), (c) and (f) of the Federal Courts Rules for an order striking out the Statement of Claim in its entirely without leave to amend on the basis that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and awarding costs.

[27] In rendering the Order, Justice Furlanetto noted that the Statement of Claim was an attack on the decision of Justice Gomery in the Ontario Proceedings described in detail in Section II (Background), above, of this Order and Reasons. Justice Furlanetto found that the Statement of Claim was “a series of unfounded accusations that cannot stand”, that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and that it was vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process. In addition, Justice Furlanetto stated:

In this case, the Plaintiff has made sweeping allegations of bias and accusations of criminal wrongdoing against Justice Gomery without any foundation. Such bald inflammatory allegations seek to attack the integrity of the judicial process and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is clear that the Plaintiff disagrees with the decision made by Justice Gomery; however, it does not follow that a judge has acted with bias or in a criminal manner because they have made a reasoned decision that does not favour a plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s attempt to engage the police and assert criminal charges against Justice Gomery for carrying out her role as judge is unfounded and fundamentally vexatious in nature and such allegations must be struck under both Rules 221(1)(a) and (c) of the FCR.

[28] I note this is not the first time that the Plaintiff has alleged criminal wrongdoing and commenced proceedings against members of the judiciary and/or registry officers because of a decision that did not favour the Plaintiff. By my count, this has taken place at least nine (9) times. In his written representations seeking the “reversal” of Justice Furlanetto’s Order, the Plaintiff seeks to support his position with the bald statement that “criminal misconduct on the bench can lead to their removal from office and imprisonment”.

[29] In the Order, Justice Furlanetto found that the Plaintiff’s attempts to relitigate allegations that were already held to be vexatious and without a reasonable cause of action was an abuse of process. Moreover, there was no indication that the Federal Court would have had jurisdiction over the AG Ontario, the Ontario Police Service, and Justice Gomery, including to arrest her as the Plaintiff requested. Justice Furlanetto found the Plaintiff’s allegations with respect to Canada’s constitutional system and the legal profession to be overly broad, inflammatory, and devoid of any supporting fact. She noted that such serious allegations as baldly framed as they were in the Statement of Claim were nothing more than unfounded vexatious accusations.

[30] The Defendant AG Canada had requested elevated costs on the basis that a deterrent was necessary. Justice Furlanetto found as follows:

While I agree that a deterrent is important in this case, where repeat actions have been brought, I am mindful that the Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant. In my view, a deterrent can be accomplished through a forthwith order, which will be made. In view of the motions filed and the history of the proceeding, it is appropriate to award costs payable to each of the defendant groups. However, I will fix the amount of such costs at $750 each.

[31] Finally, Justice Furlanetto, in the Order, considered, again, the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendants are allegedly in default of their defenses but found it to be without merit.

V. The Present Motion

[32] The Plaintiff clearly disagrees with the Order and the Decision. The Plaintiff did not, however, file an appeal within the applicable time limits. Instead, the Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking to (i) “reverse” the Order and the Decision, (ii) “enforce” the Plaintiff’s “Constitutional Right”, and (iii) grant judgment for default of defence [Motion]. The grounds upon which the relief was sought is set out in paragraph 2 of this Order and Reasons. Written representations totaling half a page were filed, and such representations may be summarized as (i) a general statement on the accountability of judges “removal from office and imprisonment”, and (ii) statements on default judgments.

[33] The Motion was filed on October 5, 2021, and set down to be heard at general sittings on October 13, 2021 at 11:30 am. It was directed that the Motion be heard by teleconference on the basis that the Plaintiff (i) is subject to a trespass notice to not attend 90 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario, unless requested or required by the Court, pursuant to 5(1)(a) of the Trespass to Property Act RSO 1990, c T 21, following an incident that took place at the Federal Court’s registry on September 13, 2021, that necessitated the intervention of the Ottawa Police Service, and (2) has in the past refused to comply with the health and safety measures in effect at the Court’s premises.

[34] The AG Canada and the Ottawa Police Services wrote to the Court, on October 8 and 12, respectively, notifying the Court that they had only become aware of the Motion on October 8, 2021, and making brief submissions to the effect that the relief sought in the Motion is improper and not available to the Plaintiff. It was further submitted by the aforementioned parties that the Order and the Decision do not contain errors, typographical or otherwise.

[35] On October 13, 2021, the Defendants attended, by teleconference, at the scheduled time, however the Plaintiff did not attend. The Court provided the Plaintiff with a 30-minute grace period in which to present himself at the hearing of his Motion, during which the Court Registry repeatedly sought to reach the Plaintiff by telephone. Following the grace period, the following direction was issued, dated October 13, 2021:

On October 5, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking “reversal” of an Order and a Decision issued by Justice Angela Furlanetto. The Defendants were notified of the Plaintiff’s motion on October 8, 2021. The Plaintiff’s motion was set down to be heard by teleconference at 11:30 am on October 13, 2021. The Parties were provided with the dial-in codes. The Registry confirmed the dial-in codes with the Plaintiff by telephone on the morning of October 13, 2021. The Plaintiff did not attend at 11:30 am, nor did the Plaintiff answer his phone when the Registry Officer sought to reach the Plaintiff on multiple occasions between 11:25 am and 11:55 am. The Court gave the Plaintiff a grace period of 30 minutes, until 12:00 pm, before informing counsel for the Defendants, who were prepared to proceed, that the hearing of the motion would not proceed. In view of the foregoing, the Court directs that the Plaintiff’s motion shall be disposed of in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules. The Defendants shall have until October 15, 2021 to serve and file records in response. The Defendants’ respective records may be in letter form, should they so choose. The Plaintiff shall have until October 21, 2021, to serve and file written representations in reply.

[36] The AG Canada filed further submissions dated October 14, 2021, which may be summarized as follows:

a. The Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing of his own motion;

b. The Plaintiff’s proceedings in this Court file have already been found to be frivolous and vexatious;

c. The Plaintiff has a history which includes frivolous and vexatious proceedings, together with multiple incomprehensible and vexatious filings in relation thereto, and an unsuccessful attempt to sue judges of this Court and registry officers. In proceeding T-330-13, directions from four separate Federal Court Judges directed the registry to refuse any further vexatious and frivolous materials;

d. The Plaintiff continues to demonstrate an intent to ignore the Federal Courts Rules by using this Court’s scarce judicial resources to file multiple groundless and time-consuming materials;

e. Relying on Canada v Olumide 2017 FCA 42, this Court has inherent jurisdiction to control its own proceedings and to bar vexatious and ungovernable litigants even where they have not been made the subject of a formal motion to declare them vexatious under s 40 of the Federal Courts Act; and

f. In light of the history of the Plaintiff’s actions in this Court and his failure to appear at his own motion, which is on its face vexatious and meritless, costs should be awarded in the amount of $1000 and the Plaintiff should be barred from continuing his specific course of frivolous and vexatious filings in these proceedings in the absence of leave.

[37] The AG for Ontario and Justice Gomery filed submissions on October 15, 2021, which may be summarized as follows:

a. The Plaintiff failed to attend the teleconference of his own motion, which was then converted into a motion in writing;

b. The Plaintiff’s action was dismissed, in part, because it was an abuse of process and frivolous and vexatious, and this motion ought to be dismissed on that basis;

c. In the present motion the Plaintiff is simply re-litigating the outcome of the motion to strike as he disagrees with it, and he is a vexatious litigant who has been declared as such by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice;

d. The Plaintiff has failed to disclose any basis upon which the Decision could be set aside; and

e. A request for costs in the amount of $500, and an order prohibiting the Plaintiff from filing any further materials in these proceedings without leave of the Court and not until the Plaintiff pays all outstanding costs orders.

[38] The Plaintiff filed written representations in reply, which are reproduced here in their entirety:

1 – The Plaintiff’s Constitutional Right, s 15 of the Charter, has been deliberately violated by the defendant Sally A. Gomery which gives rise to civil & criminal penalties. 2 – Consequently, s 24 of the Charter authorizes explicitly a legal action for relief. Thus the lawsuit “T-1119-21” is legitimate and not frivolous. 3 –Angela Furlanetto’s decision of Sept. 21, 2021, in relation to “T-1119-21” is unconstitutional which means it has neither force nor any legal effect. In addition, this decision is evidence of “obstruction of justice” under s 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

VI. Analysis

[39] The general rule is that once an order is made, it is final and binding and can only be set aside by way of appeal (Mazhero v Fox, 2014 FCA 219 at para 19). When this Court issues a formal order or judgment, this Court cannot reconsider, suspend, set aside, or vary it, save for the few narrow and often time limited exceptions found in Rules 397, 398, 399, and 403 of the Federal Courts Rules (Canada v MacDonald, 2021 FCA 6 at paras 14-17). The Decision and Order are final and binding. I find that none of the exceptions in the Federal Courts Rules that would mitigate the finality of the Decision and the Order apply in the present proceedings.

[40] In addition, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any basis whatsoever that would entitle him to the requested relief of “enforcing” his constitutional rights or granting a motion for default judgment. I find that the Plaintiff is simply seeking to relitigate matters that were previously decided.

[41] I find this present Motion to be wholly without merit and vexatious in nature. The Plaintiff is yet again making unfounded accusations of criminal wrongdoing against members of the judiciary, in this instance Justices Furlanetto and Gomery, because they have ruled against him. This is an abuse of the process of this Court. I am guided by the Federal Court of Appeal’s comments in Canada v Olumide 2017 FCA 42:

[17] Section 40 reflects the fact that the Federal Courts are community property that exists to serve everyone, not a private resource that can commandeered in damaging ways to advance the interests of one.

[18] As community property, courts allow unrestricted access by default: anyone with standing can start a proceeding. But those who misuse unrestricted access in a damaging way must be restrained. In this way, courts are no different from other community properties like public parks, libraries, community halls and museums.

[19] The Federal Courts have finite resources that cannot be squandered. Every moment devoted to a vexatious litigant is a moment unavailable to a deserving litigant. The unrestricted access to courts by those whose access should be restricted affects the access of others who need and deserve it. Inaction on the former damages the latter.

[20] This isn’t just a zero-sum game where a single vexatious litigant injures a single innocent litigant. A single vexatious litigant gobbles up scarce judicial and registry resources, injuring tens or more innocent litigants. The injury shows itself in many ways: to name a few, a reduced ability on the part of the registry to assist well-intentioned but needy self-represented litigants, a reduced ability of the court to manage proceedings needing management, and delays for all litigants in getting hearings, directions, orders, judgments and reasons.

[21] On occasion, innocent parties, some of whom have few resources, find themselves on the receiving end of unmeritorious proceedings brought by a vexatious litigant. They may be hurt most of all. True, the proceedings most likely will be struck on a motion, but probably only after the vexatious litigant brings multiple motions within the motion and even other motions too. In the meantime, the innocent party might be dragged before other courts in new proceedings, with even more motions, and motions within motions, and maybe even more.

[22] Section 40 is aimed at litigants who bring one or more proceedings that, whether intended or not, further improper purposes, such as inflicting damage or wreaking retribution upon the parties or the Court. Section 40 is also aimed at ungovernable litigants: those who flout procedural rules, ignore orders and directions of the Court, and relitigate previously-decided proceedings and motions.

[23] Section 40 exists alongside other express, implied or necessarily incidental powers the Federal Courts have to regulate litigants and their proceedings. These are found in the Federal Courts Act and the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/86-106. Other powers emanate from the Federal Courts’ plenary jurisdiction to regulate their proceedings: Canada (Human Rights Commission) v Canadian Liberty Net, 1998 CanLII 818 (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 626; 157 DLR (4th) 385. All of these powers are specific to particular proceedings before the Courts.

[42] I am equally guided by the Federal Court of Appeal in Fabrikant v Canada, 2018 FCA 171 [Fabrikant No. 1]:

[3] [T]he Court has a general power to impose conditions, vary a rule, or dispense with compliance with any rule, including any rule relating to notices of appeal and their filing: Rules 53 and 55. And even more, the Court can regulate particular proceedings before it and address actual or potential abuses of its process by using broad plenary powers. These powers necessarily inhere in this Court because of its function and status of a court: as a court and to be a court, this Court must be able to do certain things when appropriate. See Canada (Human Rights Commission) v Canadian Liberty Net, 1998 CanLII 818 (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 626, 157 DLR (4th) 385 at paras 35 to 38, Canada (National Revenue) v RBC Life Insurance Company, 2013 FCA 50; [2013] 3 CTC 126, Coote v Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company, 2013 FCA 143, the Mazhero v Fox trilogy, 2014 FCA 219, 2014 FCA 226 and 2014 FCA 238, and many other cases. All of these powers are shaped by the objectives set out in Rule 3 (“the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits”) and the conservation of the Court’s scarce resources to serve the public.

[14] The fact that a litigant has been declared to be vexatious in another court, including the Federal Court, is admissible in proceedings involving the litigant in this Court: Olumide, above at paras 37-38. A litigant in this Court who has been declared vexatious in another court and who has been behaving similarly in this Court may find that the Court has to use its powers described in para 3, above and exercise its discretions to regulate the litigation—sometimes aggressively, sometimes proactively, sometimes on its own. [Emphasis added]

[43] I am also mindful of the Federal Court of Appeal’s comments in Virgo v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 167:

[28] Multiple means exist by which this Court can summarily terminate illegitimate proceedings or proceedings doomed to fail and many of these means can be pursued immediately after proceedings are started in this Court: for just a partial list, see Fabrikant No. 1, above at para 3 and Fabrikant v Canada, 2018 FCA 224 at para 26 [Fabrikant No. 2]; for the general power to quash, see Canada (National Revenue) v JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc, 2013 FCA 250, [2014] 2 FCR 557, Lee v Canada (Correctional Service), 2017 FCA 228 and Forner v Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, 2016 FCA 35. A search for cases where this Court has invoked and exercised its plenary jurisdiction will yield many more useful cases.

[29] These means should be top of mind for every respondent and every judge and Prothonotary operating in the Federal Courts system. The early quashing of messy, time-consuming, illegitimate or hopeless proceedings—particularly those that spawn multiple motions—can free up resources better spent elsewhere. Our Court has recently underscored this point (at para 25 of Fabrikant No. 2):

Most certainly there is a resource issue, even at the best of times: Olumide at paras 17-21. And the best of times is not now. The legal complement of the Court has fallen behind Canada’s population growth. Sprawling, multifarious cases with complexity as great as this Court has ever seen now vie for space in an already full, difficult docket. We have tried to cope by adopting a proactive approach to litigation management guided by two principles: unnecessary and unmeritorious cases should be rooted out and quashed as early as possible—or, even better, prevented in the first place—and other cases should be simplified to the extent they can. Despite this, the resource issue remains pressing, impairing litigants’ access to timely justice.

[30] Given all of the available tools and given the Supreme Court’s strong encouragement to courts and parties to develop and use tools to address this problem (see Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 9, [2014] 1 SCR 87), I am baffled why so many messy, time-consuming, illegitimate and hopeless proceedings are allowed to fester in our court system.

[44] The Plaintiff’s fillings in the present proceedings have indeed been frivolous, vexatious, illegitimate and hopeless. They have been an abuse of the time and resources of this Court and its Registry. The foregoing review of these proceedings, and other proceedings instituted by the Plaintiff in this Court, demonstrate that the Plaintiff has misused his access to this Court and, as a result, this access ought to be restrained.

[45] I find that the Defendants, who have requested costs, are entitled to costs in the amount requested on a forthwith basis, namely $1000 for the AG Canada and $500 for the AG Ontario and Justice Gomery. The costs ordered payable forthwith in the Decision in the amount of $750 for each of the three Defendant groups, totaling $2250, remain unpaid. Given that Justice Furlanetto’s costs order did not appear to have served as a deterrent to the Plaintiff with respect to frivolous and vexatious filings, I conclude that an order prohibiting the Plaintiff from filing any further materials in these proceedings until such time as all the outstanding orders for costs made against the Plaintiff have been paid in full is warranted.

[46] In addition, given that this Court’s plenary powers may be used to prevent abuses of its process, I find that an order prohibiting the Plaintiff from filing any further materials in the present proceedings without leave of the Court is justified. This is particularly the case given that the Statement of Claim has been struck without leave to amend. The Plaintiff has a well-established history of submitting documents that do not contain any legal merit whatsoever, including the present Motion, yet “when filed, the Court must still deal with them, a task that fritters the Court’s scarce resources away” (Mazhero v Fox, 2014 FCA 219 at para 11). This pattern of behaviour must be addressed. Consequently, it is appropriate that this Court’s Registry shall neither accept nor file any document of any kind from the Plaintiff in these proceedings unless it is a fully-compliant motion record filed under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules seeking leave to file materials, accompanied by proof of payment in full of all the outstanding orders for costs made against the Plaintiff in these proceedings.

[47] As is clear from the foregoing, the Plaintiff has a long history of repeatedly relitigating matters that have been decided against him. I note that in Sajjaad Asghar v Her Majesty the Queen (Canada), docket T-1557-21, Order dated October 29, 2021, Chief Justice Crampton addressed, among other things, a pattern of vexatious behaviour on the part of a plaintiff, Sajjaad Asghar. Chief Justice Crampton relied this Court’s plenary powers to order, among other things, that Mr. Asghar be “prohibited from initiating any further proceedings that are based on essentially the same subject matter as the above-noted matters in which a motion to strike has been granted.” In the present proceedings, the Statement of Claim has been struck. In light of the Plaintiff’s past behaviour, and in order to deter the Plaintiff from simply filing new proceedings in this Court based on the subject matter in the present proceedings, I find that an order prohibiting the Plaintiff from doing so is warranted. The Plaintiff shall therefore be prohibited from commencing any further proceedings in this Court based on the same subject matter contained in the Statement of Claim.

[48] As noted above in the Section I (Overview) of this Order and Reasons, I am choosing to write a widely accessible Order and Reasons in this matter rather than a less-accessible order. I am guided in this regard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Virgo, where the Court chose to write widely accessible reasons when addressing vexatious conduct and, therein, issued a strong warning to those who fail to comply with court orders. The Plaintiff should consider this Order and Reasons a strong warning that serious consequences can flow from repetitive abusive, vexatious, and frivolous filings and proceedings. Not only can one be precluded from commencing proceedings without leave of this Court, one can also ultimately find themselves facing contempt proceedings should one disobey an order of this Court. I note that despite the Vexatious Litigant Order, the Plaintiff nevertheless commenced the Ontario Proceedings.

[49] A failure to comply with an order of this Court can ultimately lead to proceedings for contempt of court. The consequences of a finding that a person is in contempt of court are significant. If he was not aware before, the Plaintiff will now be aware that, pursuant to Rule 472 of the Federal Courts Rules, the consequences may include an order that:

(a) the person be imprisoned for a period of less than five years or until the person complies with the order;

(b) the person be imprisoned for a period of less than five years if the person fails to comply with the order;

(c) the person pay a fine;

(d) the person do or refrain from doing any act;

(e) in respect of a person referred to in Rule 429, the person’s property be sequestered; and

(f) the person pay costs

[50] It is my hope that the Plaintiff heeds the strong warning contained herein and adheres to the Order. Nevertheless, I consider that it is important that this Order and Reasons be accessible given the Plaintiff’s history of frivolous and vexatious filings and proceedings. This Court wants the Judges and Prothonotaries in the Federal Courts system and the judges and judicial officers in other jurisdictions’ courts to be aware of (i) the actions of the Plaintiff in these proceedings and in the other proceedings that he has filed in this Court, and (ii) the clear warning that has been provided.

VII. Conclusion

[51] For the foregoing reasons, this Motion is dismissed on the basis that it has no merit whatsoever, and that it is vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of this Court’s process.

[52] Under this Court’s plenary power to prevent abuses, given the Plaintiff’s history of vexatious and frivolous filings, costs payable forthwith are awarded and restrictions shall be placed on the ability of the Plaintiff to file materials in these proceedings or to commence further proceedings in this Court based on the same subject matter as contained in the Statement of Claim.

ORDER in T-1119-21

THIS COURT ORDERS that :

1. This motion is dismissed;
2. Costs in the amount of $1000 shall be payable forthwith to the Defendant, the Attorney General of Canada;
3. Costs in the amount of $500 shall be payable forthwith to the Defendants, the Attorney General for Ontario and the Honourable Justice Sally Gomery;
4. The Registry shall neither accept nor file any document of any kind from the Plaintiff in these proceedings unless it is a fully-compliant motion record filed under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules seeking leave to file materials, accompanied by proof of payment in full of all the outstanding orders for costs made against the Plaintiff in these proceedings; and
5. The Plaintiff, George Basmadji, is prohibited from commencing any proceedings in this Court based on the same subject matter contained in the Statement of Claim in the present proceedings (T-1119-21).

"Vanessa Rochester"

Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

T-1119-21

STYLE OF CAUSE:

GEORGE BASMADJI, PHD. SC. CHEMIST (SCIENTIST) ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT UNDER S, 126(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE v CANADA & ONTARIO ATTORNEYS GENERAL SALLY A. GOMERY,

OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES

PLACE OF HEARING:

Montréal, Quebec by way of conference call

DATE OF HEARING:

october 13, 2021

ORDER AND reasons:

ROCHESTER J.

DATED:

november 4, 2021

APPEARANCES:

M. George Basmadji

For The Plaintiff

(self represented)

Me Brooklynne Eeuwes

Me Domenico Polla

Me Jeremy Wright

for the defendant, agc

FOR THE DEFENDANT, AGO

FOR THE DEFENDANT, OPS

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

M. George Basmadji

Ottawa (Ontario)

For The Plaintiff

(self represented)

Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa (Ontario)

City of Ottawa, Innovative Client Services Department

Ottawa (Ontario)

FOR THE DEFENDANTS, AGC AND AGO

FOR THE DEFENDANT, OPS