Leblanc v. Algahamdi, 2022 ONSC 693
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 560/21
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Lina saleh ahmed algahamdi, Moving Party
AND:
IAN LEBLANC, Responding Party
BEFORE: Favreau J.
COUNSEL: Lina Saleh Ahmed Algahamdi – representing herself
J.F. Lalonde – for the responding party
DECISION UNDER RULE 2.1 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Introduction
1Lina Saleh Ahmed Algahamdi sent a request to the Divisional Court seeking to schedule a motion for contempt. Counsel for the respondent sent a request to the Divisional Court asking that the motion be dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
2In her notice of motion, Ms. Algahamdi seeks a contempt order against Mr. Leblanc, with a term of incarceration, on the basis of an allegation that Mr. Leblanc did not comply with a stay certificate issued by the Divisional Court in 2019 in the context of an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board. In her notice of motion, Ms. Algahamdi alleges that Mr. Leblanc assaulted her, broke into her apartment and that he has conspired with the police.
3In response to Ms. Algahamdi’s request to schedule the motion for contempt and Mr. LeBlanc’s request that the motion be dismissed on the basis of Rule 2.1, I asked the parties to advise of the status of the appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court. Counsel for Mr. Leblanc responded that the stay was granted in April 2019 and that Ms. Algahamdi moved out of the apartment in May 2019. He also provided copies of the decisions made by the Landlord and Tenant Board. Mr. Leblanc’s lawyer also advised that Ms. Algahamdi has commenced a civil action raising the same issues as in her notice of motion, providing a copy of the statement of claim, and advised of ongoing proceedings in the civil action.
4Ms. Algahamdi did not provide information in response to the Court’s request other than to state that counsel for Mr. Leblanc was lying in his response to the Court.
5Following receipt of these communications, the Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure advising that it was considering whether to dismiss the motion for contempt as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court. The notice stated that the issues raised by Ms. Algahamdi appear to be moot because she vacated the unit over two years ago and the motion appears to be an abuse of process because she has commenced a civil action raising similar issues.
6Ms. Algahamdi made submissions in response to the Rule 2.1.02 notice. The submissions make extensive allegations of impropriety against Mr. Leblanc and others, including police officers. She also submits that the events giving rise to her request for a contempt order are different than those giving rise to the civil action.
Principles applicable to Rule 2.1
7Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a summary procedure that allows the court to dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.
8In Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2020 ONCA 690, at para. 8, the Court of Appeal for Ontario indicated that one of the principles to be applied by the courts in considering whether to dismiss a proceeding pursuant to Rule 2.1 is as follows:
Rule 2.1 must be “interpreted and applied robustly so that a motion judge can effectively exercise his or her gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process”: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at para. 8, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 488. The Rule is not for close calls — it may be used only in “the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process”: Scaduto, at paras. 8-9; Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320, at para. 6.
11In addition, in Visic, at para. 8, the Court of Appeal emphasized that a Rule 2.1 motion “focuses on the pleadings and any submissions of the parties made under the rule. No evidence is submitted on a r. 2.1 motion…”
Analysis
9I am satisfied that Ms. Algahamdi’s proposed motion for contempt should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
10The motion for contempt relates to a stay granted by the Divisional Court on April 24, 2019. This was an automatic stay granted in the context of an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board’s order terminating the tenancy.
11Ms. Algahamdi’s allegations in the notice of motion and in her submissions in response to the Rule 2.1 Notice suggest that Mr. Leblanc broke and entered into her apartment, assaulted her and stole her jewelry. She alleges that these events took place prior to and after the eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board. With respect to the events following the eviction order, Ms. Algahamdi suggests that Mr. Leblanc conspired with the police to break and enter into her apartment. She also makes significant and serious allegations of police misconduct.
12As indicated above, Ms. Algahamdi has commenced related civil proceedings. The action is against Mr. Leblanc, his mother and police officers. The statement of claim includes similar allegations to those in the notice of motion and in Ms. Algahamdi’s submissions in response to the Rule 2.1 Notice. While in her submissions Ms. Algahamdi states that the statement of claim focuses on events that occurred before she obtained the stay on the Landlord and Tenant Board’s termination order and the motion for contempt focuses on events that occurred after the Divisional Court issued the stay, this does not accurately describe the statement of claim. The claim does include similar allegations to those made in the notice of motion related to events following the termination order.
13In addition, while the appeal to the Divisional Court was commenced in April 2019, it does not appear that Ms. Algahamdi has done anything to move the appeal forward. Furthermore, she moved out of the apartment in May 2019.
14In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the proposed motion for contempt is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The issues raised on the motion are only tangentially related to the stay of the termination order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board. In addition, they are the subject of a civil action. Finally, they were not raised at the time they occurred and are now being raised over two years later, at which point Ms. Algahamdi has long since moved out of the apartment and taken no steps to move forward with her appeal.
15This is a clear case. If there is any merit to the allegations Ms. Algahamdi has raised against Mr. Leblanc in her notice of motion, those can be adjudicated in the civil action. The contempt motion has no utility and allowing the matter to go forward would be an abuse of process.
Conclusion
16Accordingly, the motion for contempt is dismissed on the basis of Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Favreau J.
Date: February 1, 2022