Court File and Parties

CITATION: Ehsani v. Miller Thompson LLP, 2026 ONSC 97

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 822/25

DATE: 2026-01-12

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MARYAM EHSANI, Appellant

AND:

MILLER THOMSON LLP and KAITLIN JAGERSKY, Respondents

BEFORE: Matheson J.

COUNSEL: Self-Represented Appellant

Jane E. Sirdevan, counsel to the Respondents

HEARD at Toronto: In writing.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Maryam Ehsani has been 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. The following directions were given by Justice O’Brien in this regard:

Ms. Ehsani has initiated an appeal from the decision of Parghi J. dated August 18, 2025 [the “Decision”]. Parghi J. dismissed Ms. Ehsani’s action in the SCJ under r. 2.1. I am concerned this appeal is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process because it falls outside the jurisdiction of this court. This is because an appeal from a dismissal of an action in the SCJ lies to the Court of Appeal, not to this court.

The Registrar therefore is asked to issue a notice under r. 2.1. Ms. Ehsani will have 15 days to provide a response of not more than ten pages to the notice. She is asked to address the court’s concern that it does not have jurisdiction. Alternatively, it is open to Ms. Ehsani to seek a transfer of her appeal to the Court of Appeal, which may be available under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act. If Ms. Ehsani wants her appeal to be transferred to the Court of Appeal, she should advise the court of this in-writing when she responds to the r. 2.1 notice. The court will then issue further directions.

[2] The Decision of Parghi J. refers to family law proceedings between Ms. Ehsani and her husband, including a trial that was decided in 2025. The respondents to this proposed appeal were counsel to Ms. Ehsani’s husband in the family law proceedings. Ms. Ehsani then commenced an action against the respondents in the Superior Court that was dismissed as an abuse of process in the Decision that Ms. Ehsani wants to appeal.

[3] Ms. Ehsani has made submissions in response to the r. 2.1 notice. She says that after receiving the notice and directions, she spoke to duty counsel in a free legal clinic in Osgoode Hall. She says that the person she spoke with gave her a Form 22D (which is not a Divisional Court form). In her submissions, she goes on to say that she “cannot bring a motion in appeal court because of” the personal respondent. Ms. Ehsani does not otherwise address the jurisdiction issue raised by Justice O’Brien nor does she ask for a transfer to the Court of Appeal. The submissions mainly set out events regarding her marriage and related marital and family problems. There are also fax cover sheets addressed to other parties such as the College of Psychologists, the Attorney General and others that include serious allegations regarding the impact of family law rules, COVID-19 vaccines and GMOs, among other things.

[4] 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 because this Court has no jurisdiction.

[5] Ms. Ehsani had the right to appeal the Decision to the Court of Appeal and may attempt to pursue an appeal in that Court although she will need to get an extension of time from that Court to do so. The Divisional Court has no jurisdiction. This Divisional Court proceeding is dismissed under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Matheson J.

Date: January 12, 2026