Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20210910 DOCKET: M52345 & M52420

Benotto, Brown and Harvison Young JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Sajjad Asghar Applicant (Moving Party)

and

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Respondent

Counsel: Sajjad Asghar, in person Karlson Leung, for the respondent

Heard: September 9, 2021 in writing

Endorsement

[1] There are two motions before the court: (i) the appellant’s request for a panel review of the order of Pepall J.A. dated April 19, 2021; and (ii) the respondent’s r. 2.1.01(1) motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of the court. These reasons deal with both motions.

[2] The appellant commenced an application against the respondent claiming that the respondent is responsible for a vast community of organized crime which has threatened him and used “heavy volumes of hired women [who] have sabotaged [his] right to lawfully making a family besides finding any quality matrimonial connections.” These women “especially the white women” have destroyed his right to “love and sex”. He sought an investigation into these allegations, and arrest of the perpetrators.

[3] Myers J. dismissed the application on a r. 21 motion, concluding that:

…this application cannot succeed. In addition, this is a repeat of prior efforts by Mr. Asghar to seek similar relief at an earlier date.

[4] Mr. Asghar sought to appeal to this court and moved for an order extending the time to appeal the order of Myers J. On April 19, 2021, Pepall J.A. dismissed his motion concluding that the justice of the case does not favour an extension because the merits of the appeal are “seriously lacking”; the conclusion of Myers J. that the application could not succeed is “unassailable”; and the application is “clearly frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.”

[5] Mr. Asghar seeks a panel review of the order of Pepall J.A.

[6] A panel review of a chambers judge decision is not a new determination. Here, the chambers judge made a discretionary decision. That decision is entitled to deference. The reviewing panel will not interfere absent legal error or misapprehension of a material fact. (See: Machado v. Ontario Hockey Association, 2019 ONCA 210, at para. 9).

[7] We see no error in principle or misapprehension and thus no basis to interfere with the decision.

[8] Further, we agree with the chambers judge that the appeal is clearly frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. On this basis, the review motion is dismissed, and the r. 2.1 motion is allowed.

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”

“A. Harvison Young J.A.”