Ahmed v. Crawford and Company, 2020 ONSC 6844

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 365/20

DATE: 20201109

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: farhan ahmed, Applicant

AND:

CRAWFORD AND COMPANY, Respondent

BEFORE: Favreau J.

COUNSEL: Farhan Ahmed – the applicant, representing himself

Bruce Hutchison – for the respondent, Crawford and Company

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The applicant sent a request to the Divisional Court seeking to schedule an application for judicial review. I held a telephone case conference on November 5, 2020 in which the applicant and counsel for the respondent participated.

[2] During the call, I raised issues about whether the Divisional Court has jurisdiction over this matter.

[3] In his notice of application for judicial review, the applicant states that he is 28 years old and that last year he discovered that he has a learning disability. He claims that the Peel District School Board should have recognized his learning disability at the time he was a student with the Board. During the case conference, the applicant and counsel for the respondent indicated that the applicant has commenced a civil suit against the Peel District School Board.

[4] In his notice of application for judicial review, the applicant describes the respondent as “an insurance company, who represents the Peel District School Board regarding the applicants [sic] claim”. The applicant claims that the respondent did not provide a “rational reason” for denying his claim against the Peel District School Board. The notice of application for judicial review refers to the Human Rights Code and the Education Act as requiring the School Board to identify and accommodate people with disabilities.

[5] In Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall, 2018 SCC 26, at para. 14, the Supreme Court of Canada held that judicial review “is only available where there is an exercise of state authority and where that exercise is of a sufficiently public character.” [emphasis added]

[6] In this case, the applicant seeks to judicially review the decision of what he describes as an insurance company for denying his claim against the Peel District School Board. Based on my review of the notice of application for judicial review, it appears that the Divisional Court does not have the authority to review the respondent’s decision. As described in the notice of application for judicial review, the respondent was not exercising state authority but, rather, was deciding whether the applicant should receive compensation for his civil claim against the School Board.

[7] Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.

[8] For the reasons above, the court is considering whether to dismiss the application on the basis of Rule 2.1.01 in this case. However, the applicant should be given an opportunity to explain why his application should not be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

[9] Accordingly, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the applicant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under rule 2.1.01 dismissing his application;

b. If the applicant chooses to make written submissions in response to the notice in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(3)2, his written submissions should address the apparent deficiencies identified above, namely, the basis on which he says the Divisional Court has the jurisdiction to deal with this matter given that it appears to challenge the decision of a private corporation.

c. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under Rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the application is stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.43;

d. The registrar shall accept no further filings in the application except for the applicant’s written submissions delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3); and

e. In addition to the service by mail required by Rule 2.1.01(4), the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the applicant and counsel for the respondent, Bruce Hutchison, who appeared on the case conference.

Favreau J.

Date: November 9, 2020