Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20210616 DOCKET: C68963

Fairburn A.C.J.O, Harvison Young and Jamal JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Lina Ahmed Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Ministry of the Attorney General and Justice of the Peace Louise Logue Defendants (Respondent)

Counsel: Lina Ahmed, acting in person Matthew Chung, for the respondent

Heard: June 10, 2021 by video conference

On appeal from the order of Justice Andrew A. Sanfilippo of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 16, 2020, with reasons reported at 2020 ONSC 7892.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant, Lina Ahmed, appeals from the order of the motion judge made on December 16, 2020 dismissing her action against the respondent, Justice of the Peace Louise Logue, under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. The appellant does not appeal the motion judge’s dismissal of her claim against the Ministry of the Attorney General (“Ministry”).

[2] The appellant’s statement of claim alleges the following. On March 26, 2019, the appellant’s landlord entered her dwelling, assaulted her, and made death threats. The police removed the landlord from the premises but declined to investigate the incident or to lay charges. In April or May 2019, the appellant attended before the respondent to seek a peace bond relating to the incident. The respondent refused to accept the appellant’s application and no peace bond hearing was scheduled. The appellant alleges that the respondent’s refusal of her peace bond application infringed s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She seeks an order that the landlord enter into a peace bond, an arrangement for private prosecution of the crimes of trespass and assault, a declaration to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that the appellant’s Charter rights were infringed, and damages. The claim makes no allegations against the Ministry.

[3] The respondent and the Ministry filed a written request that the appellant’s statement of claim be dismissed under r. 2.1.01(1) and provided a copy of their request to the appellant. The motion judge dismissed the action without seeking submissions from the appellant. He concluded that because the respondent enjoyed the same immunity from civil liability as a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, the claim against her was not sustainable at law, was frivolous, and should be dismissed. He also found that no claim was pleaded against the Ministry and therefore the action against it should also be dismissed.

[4] The appellant now appeals. She asserts that the motion judge erred in dismissing the action against the respondent and in denying her procedural fairness by not seeking submissions from her. We disagree.

[5] This court recently summarized the principles governing the application of r. 2.1 in Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2020 ONCA 690, at para. 8, leave to appeal refused, [2020] S.C.C.A. No. 473. A motion judge’s ruling under r. 2.1 is discretionary and attracts appellate deference and may be set aside only if the motion judge misdirected themself or their decision was so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice.

[6] The motion judge made no such error. A motion judge may dismiss an action as “frivolous” under r. 2.1.01(1) where the action is completely devoid of merit: National Bank of Canada v. Guibord, 2020 ONCA 677, at para. 5; Rallis v. Myers, 2019 ONCA 437, at para. 3. The motion judge was entitled to find that the claim here was frivolous because there could be no civil claim against the respondent because a justice of the peace “has the same immunity from liability as a judge of the Superior Court of Justice”: Justices of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.4, s. 20; Rallis, at paras. 3-4. Like superior court judges, justices of the peace enjoy absolute immunity from personal liability in the exercise of their judicial functions: Morier and Boily v. Rivard, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716, at pp. 739-40; Ernst v. Alberta Energy Regulator, 2017 SCC 1, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 50-57, per Cromwell J., and at para. 171, per McLachlin C.J., Moldaver and Brown JJ. (dissenting, but not on this point). The action against the respondent was thus properly dismissed.

[7] Nor did the motion judge err in not seeking submissions from the appellant. Decisions under r. 2.1.01(1) are to be made in a summary manner and may, in the court’s discretion, be made without written submissions: Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.1.01(3); Fitzgerald v. Reaume, 2021 ONCA 330, at para. 7; and Beazley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 117, at para. 7. We see no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s exercise of discretion to not seek submissions from the appellant. Because the claim against the respondent is frivolous and completely devoid of merit, written submissions would not have changed the result.

[8] The appeal is dismissed.

[9] The appellant shall pay the respondent costs in the claimed amount of $100 all inclusive.

“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”

“A. Harvison Young J.A.”

“M. Jamal J.A.”