CITATION: Mohammad v. Executive Director, 2024 ONSC 4492
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 444/24
DATE: 20240903
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: AHMAD MOHAMMAD, Moving Party
AND:
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SECRETARIAT ON RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH/GOVERNMENT OF CANADA (KAREN WALLACE), Respondent
BEFORE: Matheson J.
COUNSEL: Self-represented Moving Party
Rebecca Ro, for the Respondent
HEARD: In writing.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] By notice from the Registrar dated July 31, 2024, Mr. Mohammad was given notice that the Court is considering making an order staying or dismissing this motion for leave to appeal under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] Mr. Mohammad filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal from the interlocutory procedural order of Centa J. dated July 11, 2024 (the “Order”). In response, I gave the following directions:
Mr. Mohammad has submitted a third motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory procedural order in the underlying civil proceeding. The first one was dismissed by a panel. The second one was dismissed as abandoned. This new one challenges further procedural orders in relation to a motion to strike out his statement of claim. That motion to strike out the statement of claim has not yet been decided. When that motion is decided, and if there is an order striking out the statement of claim, Mr. Mohammad can seek to exercise his appeal rights from that order.
This proposed motion is one of at least ten matters Mr. Mohammad has put forward in this Court since the beginning of 2023. Apart from one of those motions, which has not yet been decided, his matters have been dismissed either under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, or otherwise dismissed. In addition, Mr. Mohammad has obtained fee waivers for most if not all of those files. Mr. Mohammad has also had multiple matters dismissed in the Court of Appeal under r. 2.1, and that Court has ordered that he not make any further requests for a fee waiver in those proceedings or any related proceedings without permission from a judge: Mohammad v. McMaster University, 2023 ONCA 598; Mohammad v. Bakr, 2024 ONCA 347.
The decision that Mr. Mohammad now seeks leave to appeal, a decision of Centa J. dated July [11], 2024, contains procedural/scheduling orders, at least some of which appear to be favourable to Mr. Mohammad. For example, even though the timetable for the motion did not contemplate a fresh as amended statement of claim, Mr. Mohammad delivered one and Centa J. ordered that the defendant’s motion to strike out the claim proceed on the basis of the fresh as amended statement of claim. In his notice of motion for leave to appeal, Mr. Mohammad does not specify which order(s) within the decision that he now seeks leave to appeal.
The Registrar is directed to send a notice under r. 2.1 regarding this motion. The Registrar shall give Mr. Mohammad 30 days to respond rather than the usual 15 days to accommodate his disability. He may respond earlier. Mr. Mohammad shall also be given 20 pages, rather than 10 pages. In addition to submissions regarding why this motion for leave to appeal should not be dismissed under r. 2.1, Mr. Mohammad shall include any submissions on the following potential additional terms: That he may not commence proceedings in the Divisional Court, or seek a fee waiver for those proceedings, without the prior permission of a Divisional Court administrative judge or their designate. Permission may only be sought by a letter that is no longer than five pages, submitted by email, supported by an attached draft of the notice of motion/appeal/application no longer than ten pages and attaching the decision that he seeks to challenge.
[3] Mr. Mohammad responded to the above notice on August 6, 2024. He clarified that he intended to challenge that part of the Order that prevents further amendments to the statement of claim. He relied on his need to amend the name of the defendant and he put forward an email to defendant’s counsel seeking consent to do so, dated July 3, 2024.
[4] As set out in the Order, Mr. Mohammad served the fresh as amended statement of claim on July 5, 2024. Centa J. permitted Mr. Mohammad to do so even through a fresh as amended statement of claim had not been part of the schedule. In his response to this r. 2.1 notice, Mr. Mohammad submits that he did not address the name issue in that fresh as amended statement of claim, that the Order rejected further amendments, and that the name issue could mean that the motion to strike out his claim was likely to succeed.
[5] Mr. Mohammad’s submissions show an incomplete understanding of the Order. In addition to permitting the new statement of claim, Centa J. expressly noted that on the motion to strike out the statement of claim, one of the things that could be ordered is leave to further amend the statement of claim. Mr. Mohammad may therefore make his submissions about the proper name of the defendant on that motion and seek the order for leave to amend on the motion. The Order precluding further amendments was only until the disposition of the motion.
[6] Mr. Mohammad also submits that if the motion to strike out his claim is successful this Court would have no role. On the contrary, Mr. Mohammad would have appeal rights either to this Court or the Court of Appeal, depending on the outcome. At that time, he may raise issues regarding the court process that had an impact on the outcome of the motion to strike out his claim.
[7] Mr. Mohammad also submits that Centa J. should be removed from adjudicating on this matter due to his recent appointment, his prior firm’s involvement with the City of Hamilton, and his past rulings in this case. The Order does not indicate that this issue was raised at the hearing giving rise to the Order. Nor do the grounds put forward here support a recusal as part of a motion for leave to appeal the Order. On the contrary, the Order shows a balanced, practical approach to the steps needed to address the motion to strike out the claim.
[8] In my directions, quoted above, I also invited submissions on terms that would require Mr. Mohammad to obtain permission before commencing new proceedings or seeking new fee waivers. In his reply, Mr. Mohammad did not specifically respond to these potential terms.
[9] Although not included in his r. 2.1 response, Mr. Mohammad has submitted medical letters to this Court, the most recent dated April 22, 2024. For the purpose of this r. 2.1 decision and the question of terms, I accept the physician’s assessment that Mr. Mohammad has certain medical conditions. The physician asks that he be accorded leniency. I have done so. Ultimately, if Mr. Mohammad is unable to represent himself in the Court system, he should seek assistance in doing so.
[10] Subrule 2.1.01(1) authorizes the Court to dismiss a proceeding as frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. However, r. 2.1 should only be used for “the clearest of cases”: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at para. 8. This is such a case. It is apparent that Mr. Mohammad’s motion for leave to appeal the Order is fundamentally flawed and bound to fail.
[11] Given the history of proceedings in the Divisional Court that is noted in my directions, it is appropriate to impose terms. As put by the Court of Appeal in Mohammad v. McMaster University, above, frivolous proceedings occupy scarce judicial resources and place an undue burden on the respondents who need to respond to them. There have been numerous such matters as set out in my directions, above. Mr. Mohammad should first get permission before commencing any further proceedings in this Court, and before requesting another fee waiver.
[12] The terms, set out below, reflect the fact that Mr. Mohammad has regularly submitted the court documents needed to commence his many past matters, such as notices of motion, application or appeal.
[13] This proceeding is therefore dismissed under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the following terms shall apply:
(1) Mr. Mohammad may not commence further proceedings in the Divisional Court without the prior permission of a Divisional Court administrative judge or their designate;
(2) permission must be sought by a letter that is no longer than five pages and attaches the decision that he seeks to challenge, submitted to this Court by email, and the letter may also be supported by an attached draft of the notice of motion/appeal/application no longer than ten pages;
(3) permission must be sought within the time permitted to commence the proceeding, or the delay may be considered in deciding whether or not to grant leave; and,
(4) a fee waiver may not be sought unless and until permission is granted.
Matheson J.
Date: September 3, 2024