Citation

CITATION: Ahmed v. Peel District Board, 2021 ONSC 2003

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 365/20

DATE: 20210317

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: farhan ahmed, Applicant

AND:

PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, Respondent

BEFORE: Favreau J.

COUNSEL: Farhan Ahmed – the applicant, representing himself

Bruce Hutchison – for the respondent, Peel District School Board

Endorsement

[1] The applicant sent a request to the Divisional Court seeking to schedule an application for judicial review. This is the second application for judicial review brought by the applicant raising similar issues. In the first application for judicial review, the applicant named Crawford and Company as a respondent. The application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous and vexatious.

[2] After the Court received this second application for judicial review, I held a telephone case conference on March 16, 2021 in which the applicant and counsel for the respondent participated. During the call, I raised issues about whether this second application for judicial review is properly before the Divisional Court.

[3] In this notice of application for judicial review, the applicant states that he is 28 years old and that in 2019 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.

[4] In his notice of application for judicial review, the applicant seeks “an order in the nature of certiorari and mandamus, regarding the Peel District School Board’s position in this matter”. The Notice of Application for Judicial Review makes reference to the decision by Crawford and Company denying his claim and a copy of the denial letter was included with the applicant’s request to commence the application for judicial review. The applicant claims that the respondent did not provide a “rational explanation” for the decision by Crawford and Company denying his claim. 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] On the face of the notice of application for judicial review, it appears that the applicant is seeking to challenge the respondent’s decision not to provide compensation for an alleged historical failure to diagnose and accommodate his disability. The Divisional Court’s jurisdiction on an application for judicial review is limited in nature. It does not include the authority to compel the respondent to recognize the applicant’s claim or to compensate the applicant for an alleged historical wrong. The Divisional Court may have had jurisdiction if the applicant were seeking to compel the respondent to identify and accommodate his disability when he was still a student, but given that the applicant is no longer a student it is unclear what relief the applicant is seeking other than some form of compensation. If any relief is available, it would be through a civil action for damages in the Superior Court and not through an application for judicial review.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] 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 authority to deal with this matter given that it appears to challenge a decision not to provide compensation to the applicant.

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.

[9] As discussed during the case conference, I strongly urge the applicant to seek legal advice to assist him in determining what, if any, claim he may have against the respondent and how best to advance that claim. The applicant may want to consult the Law Society of Ontario’s website for help in finding legal assistance: https://lso.ca/public-resources/finding-a-lawyer-or-paralegal.

Favreau J.

Date: March 17, 2021