SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

MD Ahasanullah Chowdhury

Plaintiff

-AND-

Bangladeshi-Canadian Community Services, Business #866914013RR0001, City of Toronto, Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Toronto Police Services Board, Doctor Abu Shamim MD Arif, Alam

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: March 6, 2015

endorsement

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request of counsel for the defendants City of Toronto and Toronto Police Services Board under subrule 2.1.01(6).

[2] The City and the police ask the court to invoke the summary dismissal mechanism of rule 2.1 to stay pending dismissal the plaintiff’s motion for interim relief that is scheduled for March 31, 2015. The City has already booked a motion to dismiss the claim under Rule 21 that is scheduled for May 26, 2015. I do not know why the City’s motion is scheduled so far in future or how the plaintiff’s motion was scheduled first in light of the City’s outstanding motion.

[3] The principal ground for the City’s requested referral is that the plaintiff’s motion largely duplicates his statement of claim which is already under attack. But, first, I do not think it appropriate for the City to have filed a letter (without a copy to the plaintiff) containing this type of argument in light of my decision in Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801 at

paras. 9 to 12. Second, Rule 2.1 is not for close calls. If the City is of the view that dismissal of the main claim requires a full motion under Rule 21, why would rule 2.1 be appropriate here for a motion that tracks the claim? Finally, the notice of motion, as prolix as it may be, does, on its face, seek interim and interlocutory relief including some production of documents. It is not obvious on the face of the proceeding that the motion is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Of course, judge hearing full argument may determine otherwise. If the court hearing the motion is of the view that the case is one for the application of rule 2.1, the court may direct the registrar to issue the appropriate notice on the return of the motion.

[4] Accordingly, I decline to make a direction to the registrar under rule 2.1 at this time.

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: March 6, 2015