Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-25-00742437-0000
Date: 2025-07-18
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Re: Cheng Dong Wang, Plaintiff
-and-
The Government of Canada, The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, The Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada Revenue Agency, His Majesty The King in Right of Canada, and The Attorney General of Canada, Defendants

Before: Robert Centa
Counsel:

• Cheng Dong Wang, self-represented plaintiff
• Rahemah Siddiqui, for the defendants

Heard: July 18, 2025 (in writing)

Endorsement

Referral of Motion

[1] The registrar’s office referred this motion to me pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request from lawyers for the defendants under rule 2.1.01(6).

[2] On June 30, 2025, I directed the registrar to give notice to Mr. Wang that the court was considering making an order dismissing his action under rule 2.1.01. Wang v. Canada, 2025 ONSC 3885. The registrar invited Mr. Wang to make written submissions explaining why the action should not be dismissed. Mr. Wang did not provide any response to this invitation.

[3] I dismiss the action as frivolous.

Rule 2.1

[4] Rule 2.1.01 permits the court to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. In Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100, Myers J. explained:

Rule 2.1 is not meant to apply to close calls. It is not a short form of summary judgment. But that does not mean that it is not to be robustly interpreted and applied. Where a proceeding appears on its face to meet the standards of frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, the court should be prepared to rigorously enforce the rule to nip the proceeding in the bud. Rigorous enforcement of this rule will not only protect respondents from incurring unrecoverable costs, but should positively contribute to access to justice by freeing up judicial and administrative resources that are so acutely needed to implement the “culture shift” mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The new rule tailors appropriate procedural fairness for the category of cases involved and is an example of early resolution of civil cases that is very much in line with the goals set out in Hryniak. Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.

[5] A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been brought without reasonable grounds. Annotation to rule 2.1 in Ontario Superior Court Practice, the Hons. Todd Archibald, Stephen Firestone and Tamara Sugunasiri; Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692, at para. 11. A frivolous proceeding is one that is readily recognizable as devoid of merit, as one having little prospect of success. Gill v. MacIver, 2023 ONCA 776, at para. 3; Lavallee v. Isak, 2022 ONCA 290, at para. 19; Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 643, at para. 19. A frivolous action is one that will necessarily or inevitably fail. R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11, at para. 67.

[6] A vexatious application is one taken to annoy or embarrass the opposite party or is conducted in a vexatious manner. Gill, at para. 3; Lavallee, at para. 19; Pickard, at para. 19; and Henderson v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 89, at para. 20.

[7] The court is not to use rule 2.1.01 for close calls. However, neither the opposing parties nor the court should be required to devote scarce resources to proceedings that are clearly frivolous. Allowing such proceedings to occupy space on the court docket takes time away from other, more meritorious cases. There is simply no benefit to allowing clearly frivolous proceedings to continue. Dunning v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2023 ONSC 73, at para. 26; Foley v. Victoria Hospital London Health Services Centre, 2023 ONSC 4978, at para. 5.

The Action is Frivolous

[8] I am satisfied the action lacks both a legal basis and legal merit. Mr. Wang has brought this action without reasonable grounds. This action will inevitably fail.

[9] Mr. Wang seeks $6 million in damages against the defendants. The statement of claim spans 30 single-spaced pages. Mr. Wang provides the following overview for his claim:

2. For a long time past even up to now, public resources like national security resources are abused to illegally tackle the victim plaintiff by making illegal misfeasance, it has been further developed to become a prolonged campaign of unlawful and tortious actions in illegal tackling the victim plaintiff and knowing such unlawful actions would cause harms to the victim plaintiff, as a result, the plaintiff is a victim harmed by a series of premeditated and organized misfeasance, particularly due to illegal monitor, nothing opaque, everything is calculated to tackle the plaintiff because of no privacy as a result of that everything is transparent, inevitably many things were and are sabotaged in the back, it already constitutes a conspiracy to injure the victim plaintiff, without doubt, clearly the government has inescapable responsibility on this case as national security resources are abused in Canada. This case is submitted in term of the principle of territorial jurisdiction, accordingly the government can make further investigation to ascertain the responsibility on misfeasors for the sake of public interests, never and shall not let the misfeasors hide in the Canadian national security team to waste of taxpayers' money in salary and fee payments for funding activities while cause harms to people and the society even the country Canada.

[10] The statement of claim is long and confusing. It does not plead material facts capable of making out a cause of action. It does not set out a justiciable claim. Rather, it makes a series of conclusory assertions, which themselves do not make sense. For example, Mr. Wang asserts that he is “targeted and illegally monitored for long time year by year, month by month, day by day by abusing public resources inter alia national security resources under the guise of pretext of lies.”

[11] The statement of claim contains rhetorical questions, which are themselves indicative of a frivolous statement of claim. For example, Mr. Wang pleads as follows:

11. Typically, for one of lies pretexts, It looks like the plaintiff is a spy in blacklist so that abusing national security resources as well as power of organization to target and tackle the victim plaintiff, it is systematic, organized and premeditated unlawful deeds made by abusing public resources inter alia national security resources to tackle the victim plaintiff, question here is: Isn't it a suspicion in slandering the plaintiff to be a spy in blacklist? So many problems arise therefrom.

[12] The statement of claim contains unusual punctuation, including exclamation marks and question marks. This type of punctuation is typical of a frivolous proceeding.

[13] The statement of claim contains many allegations related to an apparently wide-ranging conspiracy that has affected things including but not limited to Mr. Wang’s email accounts, a backpack, his Tim Horton’s payment card, and various credit cards. Among other complaints, Mr. Wang alleges that “the black hand” caused him to be unable to purchase an iced coffee at a price of $1, which he describes as “very ridiculous and appalling!” Another part of the statement of claim pleads facts related to an unsatisfactory purchase of a muffin and coffee at a fast food restaurant:

On April 2, 2025 Wednesday in McDonald Restaurant located west north corner of Finch Ave east and McCowan Ave, due to illegal monitor, the convention of the plaintiff used to buy medium size cup of coffee and carrot muffin got found even researched by the misfeasors, so even carrot muffin and medium size cup of coffee were calculated to target and tackle the plaintiff, in consequence, the workers even were instigated and manipulated to tackle the plaintiff by giving a problem-doubted carrot muffin and using the arranged cup like used cup to make coffee to the plaintiff, fortunately it was found a little bit early, the plaintiff temperately changed carrot muffin to chocolate brownie muffin and changed a new cup of coffee, otherwise it would be dangerous to health, even cause health incident. On site the plaintiff gave a warning to the worker that it was first time, otherwise the case would be reported to watchdog Health Canada and then taken to the court for huge compensation, while the plaintiff also spoke the case to some customers, even next day the plaintiff also spoke the case to some customers.

[14] Mr. Wang’s pleading makes little sense, and his action is doomed to fail.

[15] As noted above, Mr. Wang did not provide submissions explaining why his action should not be dismissed. Although he could have persuaded me that his action should be allowed to proceed, he did not do so. I am satisfied that the action is clearly frivolous. I have no doubt that, if I allowed this action to continue, it would ultimately fail and that, in the meantime, it would consume a vast and disproportionate amount of court time.

[16] I dismiss the action pursuant to rule 2.1.01(1), without costs.

Robert Centa
Date: July 18, 2025