Court File and Parties

CITATION: Mohammad v. Munn, 2023 ONSC 4361

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 235/23

DATE: 20230726

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Ahmad Mohammad and Fatama Yousef, Appellants

AND: Catherine Munn, Allison Drew-Hassling and Ian Jeyaseelan, Respondents

BEFORE: Schabas J.

HEARD at Toronto: In writing

RULE 2.1 ENDORSEMENT

[1] This appeal is to be dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[2] The notice of appeal purports to appeal an order of an Associate Justice striking out statements of claim and dismissing an action. However, the notice seeks relief that is not available on the appeal, which is a broad request for documents and that other information be released to the appellants, and damages. The grounds of appeal do not assist in understanding how this proceeding has any merit, or coherence.

[3] Further, the Appellant’s Certificate Respecting Evidence does not identify evidence from the decision under appeal, but is also a request for documents “between the defendants and every personnel in every Canadian institution whether governmental (e.g., ministries, courthouse, police, university, hospital) or private (e.g., effort trust company, private companies “information collectors”, etc.).”

[4] The submissions received from Ahmad Mohammad and Fatama Yousef in response to the notice that the Court was considering the application of Rule 2.1.01 do not provide assistance in showing any merit, or coherence, to the proposed appeal, asserting complaints about previous orders by other judges, and constitutional violations, among other things.

[5] This court may stay or dismiss an appeal if it appears to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process: Rule 2.1.01, Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 2.1.01 should only be used in the “clearest of cases”, where the frivolous or abusive nature of the proceedings is apparent on the face of the pleadings: Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2020 ONCA 690, at para. 8; Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at para. 8; Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320 at para. 6. The Rule should not be used to weed out cases that might be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process or where it is a close call: Visic at para. 8.

[6] This is not a close call. The relief sought and grounds set out in the notice of appeal are not connected to the appeal itself and nothing provided by the appellants on this process provides any legitimacy to this appeal. On its face, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

[7] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.01, without costs

Schabas J.

Date: July 26, 2023