Mohammed v. Carquest Auto Parts, 2019 ONSC 569

Mohammed v. Carquest Auto Parts, 2019 ONSC 569

CITATION: Mohammed v. Carquest Auto Parts, 2019 ONSC 569

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-1092

DATE: 20190121

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

D.L. CORBETT, MYERS and SHEARD JJ.

B E T W E E N:

JAMEEL MOHAMMED

Mr Mohammed self-represented

Appellant

• and -

CARQUEST AUTO PARTS and

No one appearing for the Respondent

CANADA REVENUE AGENCY

Respondents

Heard at Oshawa: January 21, 2019

DECISION

D.L. Corbett J.

1Mr Mohammed was declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act¹ by order of Loukidelis J. on October 16, 2007. Since that time, Mr Mohammed has brought many applications to the Superior Court seeking to permit him to commence new proceedings or to appeal past decisions, and seeking to have the vexatious litigant order rescinded. These have all been denied. His history is well summarized by Justice Darla Wilson in her 2013 decision refusing his requests.²

2Mr Mohammed has again applied for permission to proceed, and for an order setting aside the s.140 order made against him in 2007. This time his request came before Gunsolus J., who dismissed it on May 28, 2018. Mr Mohammed appeals that decision to this court.

3Mr Mohammed must obtain relief under s.140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act in order to commence or pursue court proceedings, or to be relieved from the vexatious litigant order made against him. Paragraph 140(4)(e) of the Courts of Justice Act provides that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant relief to an applicant on an application pursuant to s.140(3). There is no right of appeal from the order of Gunsolus J. The appeal is therefore quashed.

4This is not a case where Mr Mohammed’s appeal is in the wrong court: there is no appeal from the order of Gunsolus J.

5Mr. Mohammed wished to argue that the absence of an appeal right offends the Charter and Canada’s fundamental law. There is no merit in that argument.

6Mr Mohammed confirms that he obtained a fee waiver for the proceeding before Gunsolus J. and before this court. We would not interfere with those waivers after-the-fact. However, it is clear that Mr Mohammed has been abusing the court process serially, to the expense of the civil justice system. He should not be permitted fee waivers to do so in future.

7As was done in Peoples Trust v. Atas,³ Mr Mohammed is ordered not to apply for or to accept a fee waiver in any proceeding or in any step in a proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, including the Small Claims Court, without first obtaining a judge’s order. Such an order will only be granted for “particular court fees for particular steps in proceedings”. Mr Mohammed will have “to establish, on proper evidence, that [he] meets the financial criteria for a fee waiver” and he will have to establish that “it is in the interests of justice that the fee waiver be granted to him”. In the absence of such evidence he should not expect that a fee waiver will be granted.⁴

8The appeal is quashed. Mr Mohammed may not obtain a fee waiver except in accordance with paragraph 7 of this decision. Since the defendants did not participate in these proceedings there shall be no order as to costs.

D.L. Corbett J.

I agree

Myers J.

I agree

Sheard J.

Footnotes

1. 1Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c. C.43, s.140.
2. 2Mohammed v. Goodship, 2013 ONSC 4942. This after prior applications before Mulligan J. (2008), Roberts J. (as she then was) (2010), Brown J. (as he then was) (2011), Belobaba J. (2012) and Gilmore J. (2012).
3. 3Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 58, paras. 322-325; Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 5631, paras. 41-50.
4. 4Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 5631, para. 50.