COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
ZIAD ANANI AND ANDREA ANANI (Plaintiffs/Appellant) – and – HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (Defendants/Respondents)
BEFORE:
WEILER, BLAIR and ROULEAU JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Ziad Anani in person
Elizabeth Kikuchi for the respondents
HEARD & ENDORSED:
October 18, 2006
On appeal from the order of Justice C.T. Hackland of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 29, 2006.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1Justice Hackland struck out the appellants’ statement of claim on the basis that the action constituted an abuse of process. He concluded that the proceedings were an attempt on the part of the Ananis to re-litigate complaints that Mr. Anani has about a legal proceeding in which he was involved in the Supreme Court of British Columbia: Anani v. Uniglobe Travel, [2005] B.C.J. No. 595, 2005 BCCA 116.
2The appellants succeeded on liability in that action but were awarded no damages. In an unusual sequence of proceedings in the Supreme Court of Canada and the British Columbia Court of Appeal, their attempts to appeal failed (the Ananis attempted to go directly to the Supreme Court of Canada because they had no faith in the system of justice in British Columbia, and when that attempt was dismissed they were then unsuccessful in obtaining an extension of time to appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal).
3In this action the Ananis claim against Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada on the basis of discrimination, defamation, malice and breach of their Charter rights. The motion judge concluded not only that the action was an attempt to re-litigate the British Columbia proceedings but also that there was nothing in the facts as pleaded that could give rise to a claim connecting the complaints to this defendant.
4We agree with the motion judge, and can find no basis for interfering with his decision. The appellants are not entitled to make an indirect attack on the B.C. proceedings by launching an action to that effect in Ontario against the Federal Government. There is no basis in law for the claim asserted in the statement of claim against Her Majesty in right of Canada. We agree with the motion judge that it is plain and obvious that the action cannot succeed and that it is an abuse of process.
5Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, we make no award as to costs.