Mohammed v. Carquest Auto Parts, 2019 ONSC 569
CITATION: Mohammed v. Carquest Auto Parts, 2019 ONSC 569
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-1092
DATE: 20190121
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. CORBETT, MYERS and SHEARD JJ.
B E T W E E N:
JAMEEL MOHAMMED
Mr Mohammed self-represented
Appellant
- and -
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS and
No one appearing for the Respondent
CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
Respondents
Heard at Oshawa: January 21, 2019
DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
[1] Mr Mohammed was declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act[^1] by order of Loukidelis J. on October 16, 2007. Since that time, Mr Mohammed has brought many applications to the Superior Court seeking to permit him to commence new proceedings or to appeal past decisions, and seeking to have the vexatious litigant order rescinded. These have all been denied. His history is well summarized by Justice Darla Wilson in her 2013 decision refusing his requests.[^2]
[2] Mr Mohammed has again applied for permission to proceed, and for an order setting aside the s.140 order made against him in 2007. This time his request came before Gunsolus J., who dismissed it on May 28, 2018. Mr Mohammed appeals that decision to this court.
[3] Mr Mohammed must obtain relief under s.140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act in order to commence or pursue court proceedings, or to be relieved from the vexatious litigant order made against him. Paragraph 140(4)(e) of the Courts of Justice Act provides that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant relief to an applicant on an application pursuant to s.140(3). There is no right of appeal from the order of Gunsolus J. The appeal is therefore quashed.
[4] This is not a case where Mr Mohammed’s appeal is in the wrong court: there is no appeal from the order of Gunsolus J.
[5] Mr. Mohammed wished to argue that the absence of an appeal right offends the Charter and Canada’s fundamental law. There is no merit in that argument.
[6] Mr Mohammed confirms that he obtained a fee waiver for the proceeding before Gunsolus J. and before this court. We would not interfere with those waivers after-the-fact. However, it is clear that Mr Mohammed has been abusing the court process serially, to the expense of the civil justice system. He should not be permitted fee waivers to do so in future.
[7] As was done in Peoples Trust v. Atas,[^3] Mr Mohammed is ordered not to apply for or to accept a fee waiver in any proceeding or in any step in a proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, including the Small Claims Court, without first obtaining a judge’s order. Such an order will only be granted for “particular court fees for particular steps in proceedings”. Mr Mohammed will have “to establish, on proper evidence, that [he] meets the financial criteria for a fee waiver” and he will have to establish that “it is in the interests of justice that the fee waiver be granted to him”. In the absence of such evidence he should not expect that a fee waiver will be granted.[^4]
[8] The appeal is quashed. Mr Mohammed may not obtain a fee waiver except in accordance with paragraph 7 of this decision. Since the defendants did not participate in these proceedings there shall be no order as to costs.
D.L. Corbett J.
I agree
Myers J.
I agree
Sheard J.
Released: January 21, 2019
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.:
DATE: 20190121
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Jameel Mohammed
Appellant
- and -
Carquest Auto Parts and
Canada Revenue Agency
Respondents
DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
Released: January 21, 2019
[^1]: Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c. C.43, s.140.
[^2]: Mohammed v. Goodship, 2013 ONSC 4942. This after prior applications before Mulligan J. (2008), Roberts J. (as she then was) (2010), Brown J. (as he then was) (2011), Belobaba J. (2012) and Gilmore J. (2012).
[^3]: Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 58, paras. 322-325; Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 5631, paras. 41-50.
[^4]: Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 5631, para. 50.