Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20211130 DOCKET: C69618

van Rensburg and Roberts JJ.A. and Tzimas J. (ad hoc)

BETWEEN

Oussama Hamza o/a Hamza Law Applicant (Appellant)

and

Law Society of Ontario, Ismail Aderonmu, Jessica Soubas, Yevgeniya Huggins, and Vincent Rocheleau Respondents (Respondents on Appeal)

Counsel: Oussama Hamza, acting in person Katherine Hensel, for the respondent, Law Society of Ontario Daniel Mayer, for the Ministry of the Attorney General

Heard: in writing November 26, 2021

On motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 for consideration of the appeal from the order of Justice Thomas A. Heeney of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 28, 2021.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant is appealing an order dated April 28, 2021. This order, granted by Heeney J. (the “motion judge”), dismissed the appellant’s application seeking relief against the Law Society of Ontario (the “LSO”) and various individuals, some of whom, like the appellant, are lawyers and members of the Ontario bar.

[2] The motion judge provided detailed reasons in which he outlined the appellant’s pleadings and explained their deficiencies. It is unnecessary to recite in any detail the appellant’s various allegations. It is sufficient to say that the motion judge, at para. 27 of his reasons, described the notice of application, affidavit and factum of the appellant as follows:

The Notice of Application, affidavit and Factum filed by the applicant together amount to over 1,000 pages of rambling, pseudo-intellectual attacks on the LSO and the other respondents, expressions of his opinion on their character and integrity, racist and misogynist attacks on the respondents and the judiciary, arguments that amount to little more than incomprehensible legal gibberish, and supposedly “historical” references to things such as genocide, colonization and slavery that can have no possible connection to what this case is, at its base, all about: his objection to the fact that the respondents made complaints to the LSO that he acted in a manner unbecoming of a member of the legal profession, and that the LSO had the audacity to investigate these complaints.

[3] After providing examples from the appellant’s materials, the motion judge observed, at para. 30, that it was plain and obvious that the pleadings were scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, and that the appellant’s attempt to use the application proceeding “as a forum for his racist, misogynist and bizarre views” was an abuse of the court’s process.

[4] The appellant commenced an appeal to this court. His notice of appeal names the motion judge as an additional respondent in the title of proceedings. The Attorney-General (which represents the judge as a named party to the appeal) asked this court to exercise its authority under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 to dismiss the appeal as a proceeding that is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[5] In accordance with the procedure prescribed by r. 2.1.01, the court invited written submissions, first from the appellant, and then from the respondents. The LSO responded on behalf of all respondents other than the motion judge, adding its own request that the court dismiss the appeal under r. 2.1, and setting out its submissions in a factum. The Attorney-General advised that he would be satisfied if the appellant removed the motion judge as a party to the appeal. The appellant has confirmed that the motion judge is not a party to the appeal, and he has prepared, but not yet formally filed, an amended notice of appeal.

[6] The use of r. 2.1 is “limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process”: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 343 O.A.C. 87, at para. 8. In determining whether an appeal should be dismissed summarily under r. 2.1, the court must determine “whether on its face, and in light of any submissions, the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process”: Scaduto, at para. 11.

[7] We have reviewed the appellant’s notice of appeal, which has been served and filed with this court, as well as the appeal book and factum he has been attempting to file. We have also considered the appellant’s email communications with the court staff and counsel for the respondents in relation to the appeal and the r. 2.1 motion. The notice of appeal and factum do not raise any issues or arguments with respect to the order under appeal that are relevant to any arguable ground of appeal. Instead, they continue to make racist and misogynistic statements and include personal attacks on the respondents, as well as the motion judge and the respondents’ legal counsel. The appellant did not provide any submissions seeking to explain or justify his approach to the litigation or the appeal.

[8] We are satisfied that the appeal is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. This is a clear case for the use of r. 2.1. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

“K. van Rensburg J.A.” “L.B. Roberts J.A.” “E. Ria Tzimas, J. (ad hoc)”