Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2022-02-03 Docket: C68901, C68902 & C68903

Before: Pepall, Brown and Thorburn JJ.A.

Docket: C68901

Between: Sajjad Asghar Plaintiff (Appellant)

And: The City of Toronto, The Mayor John Tory, The Toronto Police Service Board (Members Chair) Jim Hart, Marie Moliner (Vice-Chair), Mayor John Tory, Lisa Kostakis, Michael Ford Councilor, Councilor Frances Nunziata, Ainsworth M. Morgan, The Toronto Police Chief (Interim) James Ramer and The Toronto Police Deputy Chief Peter Yuen Defendants (Respondents)

Docket: C68902

And Between: Sajjad Asghar Plaintiff (Appellant)

And: The Toronto Police Service Board (Members Chair) Jim Hart, Marie Moliner (Vice-Chair), Mayor John Tory, Michael Ford Councilor, Councilor Frances Nunziata, Ainsworth M. Morgan, Lisa Kostakis, The Toronto Police Chief (Ex-Incumbent) Mark Saunders and The Toronto Police Special Constable Joseph Pihura # 90483 Defendants (Respondents)

Docket: C68903

And Between: Sajjad Asghar Plaintiff (Appellant)

And: The City of Toronto, The Mayor John Tory, The Toronto Police Service Board (Members Chair) Jim Hart, Marie Moliner (Vice-Chair), Mayor John Tory, Lisa Kostakis, Michael Ford Councilor, Councilor Frances Nunziata, Ainsworth M. Morgan, The Toronto Police Chief (Interim) James Ramer, The Toronto Police Deputy Chief (Ex-Incumbent) Mark Saunders, The Toronto Police Deputy Chief Peter Yuen Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel: Sajjad Asghar, acting in person Jonathan Thoburn, for the respondents

Heard: January 31, 2022 by video conference

On appeal from the order of Justice Jane Ferguson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 19, 2020.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant, Sajjad Asghar, appeals from the November 19, 2020 dismissal of his actions numbered CV-20-645467, CV-20-647046 and CV-20-648878 pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[2] Under that Rule, the court may stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[3] The motion judge followed the correct procedures, received and reviewed the parties’ submissions, and determined that each of the actions was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. Each was incapable of success. She accordingly dismissed the three actions.

[4] We agree with her findings and her conclusion. These were the clearest of cases and the motion judge’s decision was fully justified.

[5] The motion judge also granted ancillary relief relating to fee waivers. Prior to doing so, she advised the parties in three identical endorsements dated November 5, 2020 that she was considering revoking the fee waivers and requiring the appellant to obtain permission of a judge prior to obtaining any further fee waivers in this or in any related proceedings, and requested the appellant to make written submissions in response. In her dismissal of the three actions, she incorporated those terms relating to fee waivers.

[6] Such a determination was not unlawful as alleged by the appellant. Rather, it was a legitimate and necessary exercise of the motion judge’s jurisdiction.

[7] We dismiss all three appeals. The appellant is to pay the respondents’ costs fixed in the amount of $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and applicable tax.

“S.E. Pepall J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”

“J.A. Thorburn J.A.”