J.F. Diamond

The defendant requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's amended claim contained numerous bizarre allegations, including monitoring by Satanic signs and media control, but also included allegations of sexual assault.

The court declined to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1, finding that because a small portion of the claim could amount to a tenable cause of action, the rule's all-or-nothing approach prevented dismissal of the entire proceeding.

The defendant's request was dismissed, leaving them free to proceed under Rule 20 or 21.

The applicant commenced an application seeking injunctive relief against the respondents.

The respondents requested the proceeding be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the applicant's written submissions relied on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) and failed to address the improper use of an application for standalone injunctive relief.

The court dismissed the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendants submitted a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) to dismiss the plaintiff's civil action, arguing it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.

The plaintiff's action alleged fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy regarding the failure to account for marital assets pending a divorce.

The court found that while the proceeding could not proceed on its own without a family law equalization claim, the claims against the non-spouse defendants existed independently.

Applying the test from Raji, the court held that Rule 2.1 is not for close calls and directed the defendants to bring a formal motion to transfer or consolidate the proceeding.

The request to dismiss was dismissed with no costs.