Sajjad Asghar v. City of Toronto

Citation: 2015 ONSC 4650 Court File No.: CV-15-525900 Date: 2015-07-20

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Between: Sajjad Asghar, Plaintiff -and- City of Toronto, Defendant

Before: F.L. Myers J. Read: July 20, 2015

Endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated June 23, 2015, reported as 2015 ONSC 4075, I directed the registrar to provide notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court was considering dismissing the action under Rule 2.1 on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on its face. Mr. Asghar delivered written submissions dated July 8, 2015 to explain why his lawsuit should continue.

[2] The plaintiff purports to sue the City for $100,000 in damages for breach of numerous statutes and for several common law causes of action. He claims that he was illicitly targeted twice by municipal lifeguards at the North York Aquatic Centre, who ridiculed him without legitimate reason for swimming too slowly in the fast lane. At para. 3 of my prior endorsement I wrote:

None of the causes of action alleged, including alleged breaches of the Statute of Frauds and the Competition Act, provide a legal remedy for the discretionary exercise of lifeguarding duties in a municipal swimming pool.

[3] In his submissions, Mr. Asghar focused on the nature of the discretion exercised by the municipal lifeguards. He argues that the discretion to manage speed in swimming pool lanes cannot be exercised unless the lifeguards have an appropriate gadget to test the speed of all of the swimmers. He argues that it is not an exercise of discretion, but, rather, an abuse of discretion, to make conclusions regarding the speed of swimmers without any gadget to measure speed. He argues as well that the lifeguards acted with malice because of the instigation of an unnamed third party. He says that he has been experiencing organized harassment in Toronto since 2007. Random people have threatened him on the street and at parties with no cause whatsoever.

[4] The Statute of Frauds deals with the necessity for certain types of contracts to be expressed in writing. The Competition Act regulates antitrust issues and anticompetitive practices of businesses. Neither these nor the other statutes and causes of action alleged by the plaintiff can lead to a successful judgment in his favour based on his allegations. The exercise or abuse of discretion under municipal bylaws and rules cannot be challenged in a civil action for damages. The claim is therefore frivolous as discussed in Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board, 2003 CanLII 7815 (ON CA).

[5] Moreover, the nature of the plaintiff’s allegations support the use of Rule 2.1 in this case. Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801, at para. 9.

[6] The action is therefore dismissed.

[7] The defendant is entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, if demanded, payable forthwith after the assessment thereof by an assessment officer.

[8] The court dispenses with any requirement for the plaintiff to approve the form and content of the formal dismissal order.

[9] The registrar shall send this endorsement to the plaintiff and to counsel for the defendant by email if it has their email addresses. The registrar is directed to serve the formal dismissal order on the plaintiff by mail at the address set out in the statement of claim.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: July 20, 2015