Court and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2022-03-22 Docket: C69230

Before: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Paciocco and Sossin JJ.A.

Between: Stacy Amikwabi, Shawn Brennan, George Fayad, Joshua Alas-Wilson, Alisa Tojcic, Jane Doe, John Doe Plaintiffs (Appellants)

And: Pope Francis, The Holy See, The State of the Vatican, The Society of Jesus, HM Queen Elizabeth II, The Order of the Garter, The House of Windsor (formerly Saxe Cobourg Gotha), Global Vaccine Alliance (GAVI), the UN’s World Health Organization/Public Health Organization of Canada, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Dr. Theresa Tam, Premier Doug Ford, Christine Elliott, Mayor Jim Watson, Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel: Michael Swinwood, for the appellants Marshall Jeske, for the respondent Attorney General of Canada Ravi Amarnath, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario, Premier Doug Ford and Christine Elliott Stuart Huxley, for the respondent Mayor Jim Watson No one appearing for the remaining respondents

Heard and released orally: March 17, 2022 by video conference

On appeal from: the order of Justice Sylvia Corthorn of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 10, 2021, with reasons reported at 2021 ONSC 1069.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is an appeal from the dismissal of an action as frivolous and vexatious pursuant to r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. The underlying proposed class action and constitutional challenge makes multiple assertions, including that COVID-19 is a multi-lateral global conspiracy to, among other things, promote sterilization programs and manipulate the human genome. Billions, if not trillions, of dollars are sought from domestic governments as well as foreign entities.

[2] The dismissal of this action reflects an exercise of discretion and therefore is entitled to appellate deference. The motion judge clearly, and in some detail, explained why she concluded that this case is frivolous and vexatious, so much so that it rises to the level of the clearest of cases in which to apply r. 2.1.01.

[3] The motion judge did not err in deciding the matter without written submissions from the appellant. These motions are intended to be made in a summary manner and may, in the court’s discretion, be made without written submissions: see Ahmed v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 427, at para. 7. A fair reading of the motion judge’s reasons, particularly paras. 34-36, demonstrates consistency with the procedural requirements of the governing rule.

[4] Nor did the motion judge misdirect herself on the law. To the contrary, her legal analysis shows her command of the operative legal principles. Nor did the motion judge make any factual errors. It was open to the motion judge to reach the conclusion she did and characterize matters as she did.

[5] We see no basis to interfere with her exercise of discretion.

Conclusion

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

[7] Costs will be paid by the appellant to the respondent Attorneys General in the total amount of $250.00, all inclusive, to be split between those parties.

"Fairburn A.C.J.O." "David M. Paciocco J.A." "L. Sossin J.A."