Kadiri v. Harikumar et al., 2015 ONSC 3777

CITATION: Kadiri v. Harikumar et al., 2015 ONSC 3777
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-528680
DATE: 20150612

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Idris Kadiri, Plaintiff

-and-

Dr. Usha Harikumar, MD FRCSC, Elana Nikolsky, Manager Birthing unit, Rouge Valley Health System, Centenary Health Centre, Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: June 10, 2015

Endorsement

[1] This matter has been referred to the court by the registrar pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(7) at the request of counsel for the defendant Harikumar under Rule 2.1.01(6). Under Rule 2.1.01(3) if the Court determines that the claim that is referred by the registrar appears on its face to be frivolous and vexatious, the court can direct the registrar to send a notice in Form 2.1A to the plaintiff. The notice advises the plaintiff that the court is seeking submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed for being frivolous and vexatious.

[2] In this case, the defendant provided a draft form of notice to the court as part of her request for relief. The defendant also sent a copy of her request and draft notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff seems to have misunderstood that he was just being sent a draft and that the court had yet to actually make a determination to call for submissions. The plaintiff has therefore filed submissions in response although they are premature. In his submissions, the plaintiff has misunderstood the process and expressed concern that the defendant has created a new proceeding in his court file number filed in the wrong court office. He wants the defendant to defend the allegations in the statement of claim.

[3] The statement of claim contains no prayer for relief. It starts with an assertion that the defendants stole his newborn baby. He makes a racist allegation against Dr. Harikumar accusing her of participating in human organ trafficking due to her nationality. Upon reading the claim in full, it appears that the plaintiff’s child has been taken into some form of guardianship and the plaintiff is unaware of the legal basis upon which the child was taken.

[4] If the plaintiff’s child was kidnapped, the plaintiff should be urgently speaking to the police. If the child has been apprehended at birth under the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11, child protection hearings are no doubt available. In either case, the claim in this proceeding appears to be frivolous and vexatious on its face.

[5] Mr. Kadiri should obtain legal advice urgently concerning child welfare proceedings. He can get free assistance from Law Help Ontario, 393 University Avenue, Room 110, Toronto, ON, M5G 1E6, Telephone: 416-628-3552.

[6] Therefore the plaintiff should be sent a notice that the court now is actually considering dismissing his lawsuit on the grounds that it is frivolous and vexatious on its face. The plaintiff will have an opportunity to explain in writing why he says that the statement of claim shows a valid basis for him to sue each of the defendants. There is no new proceeding. Nor do the defendants have to defend the claim at this time. Mr. Kadiri is required to explain how his lawsuit is a proper claim. He should get legal advice to quickly learn what his legal rights are in connection with this matter.

[4] On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing the action;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the plaintiff’s action is stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43[^1] ;[^1]

c. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the plaintiff’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);

d. In addition to the service by mail required by 2.1.01(4) rule, the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants by email if it has their email addresses.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: June 12, 2015

[^1]: Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6100, at para. 11