COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Dysart, Dudley, Harcourt, Guilford, Harburn, Bruton, Havelock, Eyre and Clyde (United Townships) v. Mohammed, 2016 ONCA 153

DATE: 20160225

DOCKET: M45559 (M45477)

Gillese, Hourigan and Pardu JJ.A.

BETWEEN

The Corporation of the United Townships of Dysart, Dudley, Harcourt, Guilford, Harburn, Bruton, Havelock, Eyre and Clyde

Applicant (Responding Party)

and

Jameel Hosein Mohammed also known as Adolphus Cecil Wilson

Respondent (Moving Party)

AND BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Applicant (Responding Party)

and

Jameel Mohammed also known as Jameel Abdool Hosein Mohammed, Abdool Mohammed, Adolphus Cecil Wilson, Adolphus Wilson

Respondent (Moving Party)

Jameel Mohammed, acting in person

Nikita Rathwell, for the responding party Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

No one appearing for the responding party the Corporation of the United Townships of Dysart, Dudley, Harcourt, Guilford, Harburn, Bruton, Havelock, Eyre and Clyde

Heard: February 22, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The moving party, Mr. Mohammed, was the subject of two separate applications to have him declared a vexatious litigant. One application was brought by Her Majesty the Queen and the other by the Corporation of the United Townships of Dysart, Dudley, Harcourt, Guilford, Harburn, Bruton, Havelock, Eyre and Clyde. Justice Loukidelis heard the applications together, as they are related. In orders dated October 16, 2007 (the “Orders”), Mr. Mohammed was declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

[2] In July 2011, Mr. Mohammed brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal of the Orders. On July 29, 2011, Juriansz J.A. dismissed the motion, stating that he was not satisfied there was a valid explanation for the delay in bringing the motion or that Mr. Mohammed’s proposed appeal had any merit.

[3] On August 29, 2013, Mr. Mohammed brought another motion for the same relief. Weiler J.A. dismissed the motion because, in her view, the motion was an attempt to relitigate the decision of Juriansz J.A.

[4] A further motion to the same effect was brought and dismissed by a single judge of this court on September 18, 2015.

[5] Mr. Mohammed moves before this court to set aside the decision of September 18, 2015, and grant him an extension of time to file notices of appeal in relation to the Orders.

DISPOSITION

[6] The motion is dismissed. The matter is res judicata and the motion is an abuse of process.

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”

“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”

“G. Pardu J.A.”