Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20200317 DOCKET: C67253

Rouleau, Hourigan and Roberts JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Mohamed Abdullahi, self-rep as Baruutman and on behalf of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him), and Faiza Ali Plaintiffs (Appellants)

and

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Alberta Danso and Mena Gill, Toronto Police Service Board, Chief Mark Saunders, Elizabeth Byrnes, James Casey, Krystal MacLeod, Jason Maunder, Paul Walker, Michael Henry, Todd Belza and James Muirhead, The Ministry of Attorney General of Ontario, Jennifer Gibson, Rebecca Law and Joanne Bruno Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel: Mohamed Abdullahi, acting in person Alex Redinger, for the Ministry of the Attorney General, Jennifer Gibson, Rebecca Law and Joanne Bruno Brennagh Smith, for all Police Respondents

Heard and released orally: March 13, 2020

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Paul M. Perell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 20, 2019.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is an appeal of the order of the motion judge on a Rule 21 motion dismissing the appellants’ claim against the Ministry of the Attorney General and certain Crown Attorneys (the “MAG Respondents”) and the libel claim against the Toronto Police Services Board and certain of its employees (the “Police Respondents”).

[2] We see no error in the motion judge’s analysis and no basis for appellate interference.

[3] None of the MAG Respondents are proper defendants. Even if the proper defendant had been named (i.e. the Attorney General for Ontario), the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The Crown Attorneys are immune from liability in negligence. Further, the necessary intent for the torts of malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and conspiracy were not pleaded. Nor was the required misconduct pleaded for the Charter damages claim. The motion judge did not err in denying leave to amend because there is nothing in the record to suggest that facts exist to establish intent or a threshold of misconduct beyond negligence.

[4] With regard to the Police Respondents, the libel claim was struck because of a failure to comply with the notice requirement and limitation period under the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 12. We see no error in that analysis.

[5] The appellants have also raised an argument that the motion judge exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias. There is absolutely no merit in that submission.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

[7] Regarding the costs of the appeal, the appellant, Mohamed Abdullahi, shall pay costs to the MAG Respondents in the all-inclusive sum of $3,000. Mr. Abdullahi shall also pay the Police Respondents their costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive sum of $3,000.

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”