Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Chowdhury v. Toronto (City), 2020 ONCA 539 Date: 2020-08-31 Docket: C67560

Before: Lauwers, Brown and Nordheimer JJ.A.

Between:

MD Ahasanullah Chowdhury Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

City of Toronto, Toronto Police Services Board, Toronto Community Housing Corporation and Bangladeshi-Canadian Community Services Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel: Ahasanullah Chowdhury, acting in person No one appearing for the respondents

Heard: in writing

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Mario D. Faieta of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 25, 2019.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] Mr. Chowdhury appeals from the order of the motion judge that struck out his statement of claim in this matter without leave to amend. Counsel for the Toronto Community Housing Corporation sought a dismissal of the appeal pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Upon a review of the matter, the Registrar was directed by the court to send notice to the appellant that it was considering the r. 2.1 request. The appellant filed material in response to the r. 2.1 request. The respondents were advised that they could, but did not have to, file material on the request. No responding material was filed.

[2] The appellant has a long-standing complaint with Toronto Community Housing Corporation, of which he is a tenant. He commenced an action against it, along with others, in 2014. It was dismissed, at that time, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

[3] The current statement of claim was issued in 2019. Like its predecessor, this statement of claim outlines a litany of complaints by the appellant. However, once again, none of them are properly tied to a recognized cause of action. As the motion judge found, the appellant’s statement of claim “does not plead the basic elements of any recognized cause of action”.

[4] As also found by the motion judge, the 2019 statement of claim seeks to relitigate the same issues that were raised in the 2014 statement of claim which, as we have already noted, was also struck out.

[5] The appellant does not raise through his proposed appeal any arguable ground of appeal. His appeal, in these circumstances, constitutes a proceeding “that appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court” as defined in r. 2.1.

[6] Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”