Endorsement
COURT FILE NO.: 15-64780
DATE: 20150813
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Abdul Razaq Raji, Sherley Leandre, Plaintiffs
AND
TD Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Perell Jowel, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
HEARD: By Requisition
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This request was referred to me by the Registrar’s Office, pursuant to sub-rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of written requisitions from the Defendants.
[2] Pursuant to rule 2.1 01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, the Court has general power to make an order staying or dismissing a proceeding if the proceeding “appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.”
[3] I have previously dismissed an earlier proceeding commenced by theses Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 2.1, namely, Raji v. Myers, 2015 ONSC 4066, [2015] O.J. No. 3436.
[4] In addition to this action, the Plaintiffs have commenced a number of proceedings in this Court:
Court File No. 15- 64779 – Raji and Leandre v. HMQ in Right of Ontario;
Court File No. 15- 64969 – Raji v. Sandra Herrera
Court File No. 15- 64968 – Raji and Leandre v. Downtown Legal Services
Court File No. 15- 64519 – Raji and Leandre v. Stephen Harper
Court File No. 15- 65212 – Raji and Leandre v. RCMP and CSIS
[5] Requisitions pursuant to Rule 2.1 have also been filed in Court File No. 15- 64779 and Court File No. 15- 64969.
[6] I have read the Statement of Claim advanced in this action. The Plaintiffs seek total damages of $31.3 trillion; aggravated damages in the amount of $11.3 trillion and punitive damages of 20 trillion.
[7] Under the heading MATERIAL FACTS, the following appears:
The central issue in this action is the joining of TD Bank, Royal Bank of Canada and Justice Perell J. of the Ontario Superior Court in the highly notorious criminal conspiracy to confiscate her family home at 1679 Sagebrush Court, Windsor Ontario.
The reason for this criminal confiscation is to cover up criminal activities of the gang of criminals, members of which are within TD Bank, RBC, Government of Canada, RCMP, CSIS, Windsor regional Hospital, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, et al., against the Plaintiffs. This gang conspired with other international criminals posing as business people and country leaders to frame the plaintiff Raji as a terrorist. The plaintiffs were able to stop the terrorist framing plot and the attacks line by the criminals through a legal action against the BLG LLP, a law firm harbouring members of this criminal gang.
The reason for the terrorist framing plot was to attack the plaintiffs and their children to put an end to the plaintiffs’ fight for their rights, the rights of children and the rights of a specific group of children referred to herein as “The Children” the gang of criminals referred to above are abusing in the worst of ways humanity has never witnessed.
[8] The Statement of Claim goes on to discuss “framing plots” and claims that at the centre of the coordination of these plots is the “Prime Criminal of Canada”, Stephen Harper. It is alleged that the Prime Minister works hand-in-hand with Bill Gates, the Agha Khan and Abdullah of Jordan among others. The intention of this supposed plot is to gain military occupation of West Africa with the intention of converting it to a land of total disaster.
[9] It is further alleged that part of this plot is to use this land of total disaster for further human experiment operations including artificial human or production. The plotters are described as “rapists and stranglers of babies.”
[10] The allegations go on at length to reference previous legal proceedings where Justice Perell granted judgment in favour of the TD Bank following a motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs allege that Justice Perell made this in order to cover up the alleged terrorist framing plot.
[11] In Markowa v. Adamson Cosmetic Facial Surgery Inc., 2014 ONSC 6664, [2014] O.J. No. 5430 at paras. 12 to 14, the Court held that an attempt to re-litigate issues and adding parties opposite who were involved in earlier litigation are recognized signs of vexatiousness that invites scrutiny under rule 2.1.
[12] It is apparent on the face of the Statement of Claim, and having regard to the other proceedings initiated by these Plaintiffs that this action may be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of the Court and that resort to Rule 2.1 is appropriate. I therefore make the following orders:
The Registrar is directed to give notice to the Plaintiffs in form 2.1A that the Court is considering making an order under sub-rule 2.1.01 dismissing the action;
Pending the outcome of the written hearing under Rule 2.1, or further order of the Court, the Plaintiffs’ action is stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.
The Registrar shall accept no further filings in this action excepting only the Plaintiffs written submissions if delivered in accordance with sub-rule 2.1.01(3).
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
Date: August 13, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: 15-64780
DATE: 20150813
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Abdul Razaq Raji, Sherley Leandre, Plaintiffs
AND
TD Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Perell Jowel, Defendants
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
ENDORSEMENT
Beaudoin J.
Released: August 13, 2015