Court File and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20240502 DOCKET: COA-24-CV-0081
Zarnett, Coroza and Favreau JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Ahmad Mohammad Plaintiff (Appellant)
and
Mohamed Bakr Defendant (Respondent)
Counsel: Ahmad Mohammad, acting in person Sean Murtha and Chris McCormack, for the respondent
Heard: in writing
Determination pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, with respect to the appeal from the order of Justice Robert Centa of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 12, 2024.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Reasons for Decision
The appellant, Ahmad Mohammad, seeks to appeal an order that dismissed the underlying action based on r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
2This court gave notice to the appellant that it was considering dismissing the appeal pursuant to r. 2.1.
3In response, the appellant advised of difficulty understanding the r. 2.1 notice in part because it contains too many uses of the word “or” and because it does not provide particulars. The appellant also provided a medical letter dated February 26, 2024, stating that the appellant has various psychiatric conditions and urging the court to resolve the appellant’s legal matters expeditiously.
4We are not persuaded that the appellant is unable to understand the r. 2.1 notice, which is a standard form used by the court. The appellant has an extensive history of proceedings in the Superior Court and this Court, including proceedings that have been terminated pursuant to r. 2.1: Mohammad v. McMaster University, 2023 ONCA 598; Mohammad v. Munn, 2023 ONSC 4361; Mohammad v. Springer Nature, 2023 ONSC 5523. In addition, while the medical information provided supports the need to deal with the appellant’s legal proceedings expeditiously, it does not support a finding that the appellant is unable to understand the r. 2.1 notice or cannot respond to it.
5We have therefore decided to determine whether the appeal should be dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1 based on the materials available to the court.
[6]
Analysis
Based on those materials, we are satisfied that the appeal should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process pursuant to r. 2.1.
7The motion judge found that the appellant’s action suffered from four defects: 1) some of the allegations arose from statements made by the respondent in court, which are subject to absolute privilege, 2) the statement of claim is “rambling and difficult to understand”, 3) most of the relief sought is not available in a civil action, and 4) the statement of claim contains a series of rhetorical questions which is a hallmark of a frivolous and vexatious claim.
8The notice of appeal, while brief, essentially consists of an attack on the motion judge. For example, the appellant alleges the motion judge was recently appointed and used “unlawful tactics” to “override” the decision of a more experienced judge. He also alleges that the motion judge used “conformational bias and logical fallacies to give himself the right to use r. 2.1”.
9As this court held in Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 343 O.A.C. 87, at para. 9, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 488:
[R]ule 2.1 is not for close calls. Its availability is predicated on the abusive nature of the proceeding being apparent on the face of the pleadings themselves. No evidence is submitted on the motion…. [T]here are two conditions generally required for rule 2.1 to be applied. First, the frivolous, vexatious, or abusive nature of the proceeding should be apparent on the face of the pleading as required by the rule. Second, there should generally be a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process of rule 2.1.
10This is not a close call. No arguable basis has been put forward that would justify appellate interference with the motion judge’s decision that the action had all the indicia of a frivolous and vexatious action and should be dismissed. The appeal bears those same indicia.
[11]
Disposition
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.
“B. Zarnett J.A.”
“S. Coroza J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”
