Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 443/26
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: RITA NAIME, Moving Party
AND:
SHAFIQULLAH ZADRAN, Responding Party
BEFORE: Vermette J.
COUNSEL: Rita Naime, self-represented
Omar Khan, for the Responding Party
HEARD: In writing
Endorsement
1On June 1, 2026, the moving party filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal with respect to interlocutory orders of Bruhn J. dated November 4, 2025, December 8, 2025 and May 14, 2026, which were made in the context of a family law proceeding. A stay order is also sought in the notice of motion for leave to appeal. While the moving party has included in her materials a copy of the endorsements dated May 14, 2026 and December 8, 2025, she has not filed a copy of any endorsement dated November 4, 2025.1
2On June 18, 2026, I made the following directions in this matter:
This file was submitted to me for case management today.
The notice of motion for leave to appeal that was filed seeks leave to appeal three interlocutory orders dated November 4, 2025, December 8, 2025 and May 14, 2026.
The moving party, Ms. Naime, has not complied with the applicable time limits to file a motion for leave to appeal with respect to the November 4 and December 8, 2025 orders. An extension of time is required with respect to these two orders. Consequently, this part of the motion for leave to appeal is not further addressed.
The May 14, 2026 order is an order adjourning a motion, and the adjournment was peremptory on Ms. Naime. The motion was adjourned to June 18, 2026, i.e., today. As a result, the subject matter of this motion for leave to appeal appears to be moot.
THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DOES NOT STAY THE UNDERLYING PROCEEDING.
If Ms. Naime disputes that her motion for leave to appeal the May 14, 2026 order is moot, she shall provide the basis for her position in an e-mail sent to the Court by June 25, 2026, and ask that her communication be brought to my attention.
If Ms. Naime intends to file a motion seeking an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal with respect to the November 4 and December 8, 2025 orders, she shall advise the Court by e-mail by June 25, 2026, and ask that her communication be brought to my attention. Ms. Naime should not assume that she would be able to obtain a stay of the underlying proceeding in the event that an extension of time is granted.
Resources for self-represented litigants in the Divisional Court can be found at: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/areas-of-law/divisional-court/help-self-represented/
The moving party is encouraged to obtain legal advice.
3No communication was received from the moving party in response to these directions.
4On June 30, 2026, I directed the Registrar to send out a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. My directions, which were also sent to the parties, read as follows:
My directions dated June 18, 2026 included the following:
“If Ms. Naime disputes that her motion for leave to appeal the May 14, 2026 order is moot, she shall provide the basis for her position in an e-mail sent to the Court by June 25, 2026, and ask that her communication be brought to my attention.
If Ms. Naime intends to file a motion seeking an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal with respect to the November 4 and December 8, 2025 orders, she shall advise the Court by e-mail by June 25, 2026, and ask that her communication be brought to my attention.”
No communications have been received from Ms. Naime following these directions.
As noted in my directions dated June 18, 2026, the notice of motion for leave to appeal that was filed by Ms. Naime seeks leave to appeal three interlocutory orders dated November 4, 2025, December 8, 2025 and May 14, 2026. The May 14, 2026 order is an order adjourning a motion to June 18, 2026. As a result, the subject matter of this motion for leave to appeal appears to be moot. With respect to the November 4 and December 8, 2025 orders, Ms. Naime has not complied with the applicable time limits to file a motion for leave to appeal, and has not sought an extension of time.
In the circumstances, it is appropriate to ask Ms. Naime to make submissions as to why this proceeding should not be dismissed at this stage. Accordingly, in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, I am directing the registrar to give notice to the parties in Form 2.1B that this proceeding may be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
The respondent is not permitted to make submissions in response to the Rule 2.1.01 notice.
5The moving party has not filed any written submissions in response to the Notice that Proceeding May Be Stayed or Dismissed that was sent to her on June 30, 2026, further to my directions.
6Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. It has been recognized that Rule 2.1 should be applied robustly so that judges can effectively exercise their gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. However, the use of this rule should be limited to the clearest of cases. See Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 at para. 8.
7In my view, this is a clear case, for the reasons set out in my prior directions. On its face, the motion for leave to appeal is incapable of success as it is moot with respect to the May 14, 2026 order, and it was filed significantly late and without any explanation for the delay with respect to the orders dated November 4 and December 8. 2025. The fact that the moving party did not even bother responding to the Rule 2.1 notice confirms the frivolous nature of the motion for leave to appeal. The motion for leave to appeal and for a stay appears to have been an attempt on the part of the moving party to prevent the motion from proceeding in the Family Court on June 18, 2026. It seems that the moving party lost interest in her proposed appeal when this did not occur.
8Accordingly, the motion for leave to appeal is dismissed. No costs are ordered given that the responding party has not had to take any steps with respect to the motion for leave to appeal.
Vermette J,
Date: July 24, 2026