Saiyegh v. Canadian Intelligence (RCMP), 2011 ONSC 915

Case Summary

The self-represented appellant appealed a Superior Court order striking his statement of claim without leave to amend. The respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, delay, and being frivolous and vexatious. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the claim exceeded $50,000, the appellant failed to perfect the appeal on time, and the appeal was entirely without merit and an abuse of process. The court also declared the appellant a vexatious litigant, prohibiting further proceedings without leave.

CITATION: Saiyegh v. Canadian Intelligence (RCMP), 2011 ONSC 915

COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1646

DATE: 2011/02/14

ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

FARIS HAZIM ABDUL-RAHEEM SAIYEGH

Plaintiff/Appellant

and -

CANADIAN INTELLIGENCE (RCMP), UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA, (CLAUDE LAGUE, WILLIAM HALLETT, MICHAEL MUNRO, CLAUDE GIROUX, NORMAND SEGUIN, GABY ST PIERRE, MARC RAVIGNAT, ISABELLE MAYRAND, CAMERON TIESMA, PETER KOPPEL, MATHEW ARCHIBALD, MICHEL NGANBE, VOICU GROZA, JEAN-LOUIS TRUDEL, BERTRAND JODIN, CATHERINE MAVRIPLIS, PATRICK PROVENCHER, JEAN-PHILIPPE SEGUIN), OTTAWA POLICE (DETECTIVE OLIVER WALROND), OTTAWA GENERAL HOSPITAL (BRIAN WEITZMAN), ATTACKER “YANEEK” (OTTAWA POLICE REPORT NO. 09-16436), ROOMMATE “MICHELLE POTTER” (WINDSOR POLICE REPORT NO. 08-14142), LANDLORD “MY NGUGEN”

Defendants/Respondents

MOTIONS HEARD: February 3, 2011

Appearances:

Mr. Faris Hazim Abdul-Raheem Saiyegh, on his own behalf

Sean Van Helden, for the University of Ottawa, and the associated individual defendants

Brad Callaghan, for Dr. Brian Weitzman

REASONS FOR DECISION

Power J.

The Motions

[1] The following motions came before me as a single judge of the Divisional Court on Thursday, February 3, 2011. There are four motions as follows:

(a) MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

This is a motion brought by the appellant for “an order to allow the extension of time for the purpose of better perfection of the appeal that was delayed in the factum and the book of authorities from October 12^th, 2010 till November 26^th, 2010, which is the date of filing this document.”

(b) MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA AND RELATED PARTIES in which the following relief is sought:

An Order dismissing the Appeal of the Appellant on the basis that the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction pursuant to subsections 19(1)(a)

Saiyegh v. Canadian Intelligence (RCMP), 2011 ONSC 915

Case Summary

ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues

Legislation 3