Court File and Parties

CITATION: Chowdhury v. Unity Health Toronto, 2024 ONSC 5508

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 424/24

DATE: 2024-10-04

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MD AHASANULLAH CHOWDHURY, Moving Party

AND: UNITY HEALTH TORONTO and the PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO, Respondents

BEFORE: Matheson J.

COUNSEL: Self-represented Moving Party Daniel Girlando, counsel to Unity Health Toronto Brendan Gray, counsel to the Information and Privacy Commissioner

HEARD at Toronto: October 4, 2024, in writing

Endorsement

[1] By notice from the Registrar dated August 21, 2024, the moving party was given notice that the Court is considering making an order staying or dismissing this proceeding under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[2] The moving party had filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal from three decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) dated April 14, 2023, April 17, 2023, and July 9, 2024. The respondents asked that this Court invoke the process under r. 2.1.

[3] In response, I gave the following directions:

Mr. Chowdhury has submitted a notice of motion for leave to appeal three decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC and Unity Health Toronto have requested that the Court initiate the process under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure [quoted below].

There is an issue of jurisdiction. It does not appear that there is a right to seek leave to appeal those decisions to this Court. The Registrar is therefore directed to give notice that the Court is considering making an order under r. 2.1, dismissing this motion. Mr. Chowdhury is encouraged to specify, in his submissions under r. 2.1, what statutory provision or rule he relies on to bring his motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court. Mr. Chowdhury is also encouraged to get legal advice.

[4] I have considered all of the moving party’s responses to the notice under r. 2.1 and do not attempt to recite them all here. Among other things, the moving party submits as follows:

(i) that he is self-represented and, “Besides the electronic tortures/ experiments or assault, the realities of circumstances are that [he] is under surveillance in all aspects of physical, including computer and online environments”;

(ii) that in another decision of this Court, Chowdhury v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2018 ONSC 3587, at para. 20-21, the Court “endorsed” his submission that the installation of a cellular antenna on the roof of his home “for the purposes of surveillance, mind control, experimentation and harassment” infringed upon his rights guaranteed by ss. 2(a) and (b), 7 and 8 of the Charter (even though the Court expressly declined to consider those arguments at para. 21);

(iii) that he pursues all avenues of review, including at the IPC, and his notice of motion for leave to appeal is based on a legal and constitutional issue;

(iv) that there have been significant amendments to the summary judgment rule – r. 20 – and asks whether “it is deserved that questions are answered by applying relevant legal principles only under the court considering against Rule 20 summary judgment procedure?”;

(v) that he asked whether there are issues of national concern, democracy, the national interest, and/or national security that deserve the consideration of a special case.

[5] The moving party also put forward a number of submissions and cases regarding a claim for breach of privacy and the infringement of his rights, including discussion about the IPC and other decisions. He also asked for legal advice in his reply. He did not identify any statutory provision or rule under which leave to appeal to this Court can be sought from the IPC decisions.

[6] 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. Although I understand that the moving party is self-represented and encourages this Court to step in due to the nature of his concerns, those submissions do not give this Court jurisdiction. There is no jurisdiction to seek leave to appeal to this Court from a decision of the IPC.

[7] This proceeding is therefore dismissed under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Matheson J.

Date: October 4, 2024