SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

SAJJAD ASGHAR

Plaintiff

-AND-

AVEPOINT TORONTO

Defendants

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: August 14, 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 defendant under subrule 2.1.01(6).

[2] The plaintiff sues the defendant for $100,000 for eight purported causes of action including: discrimination, malicious falsehood, negligence (intentional), breach of trust, deceptive marketing, misleading representation, breach of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 and breach of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34.

[3] Mr. Asghar claims that he applied for a job with the defendant. The job had been posted on the defendant’s internet site. The plaintiff says that he was offered an interview but that the defendant then changed its mind and declined to interview him. From this he has determined that the defendant never was actually offering a job. It was just fishing for resumes. Alternatively, he says that the defendant denied him a job due to discrimination against him. He reasons that his last name is sufficient for the defendant to have known that he was a visible minority and hence he was discriminated against. One pauses to wonder why the defendant would have ever offered the defendant an interview in the first place if its goal was to discriminate based on the plaintiff’s last name. No matter. The plaintiff pleads that the defendant ought to have known that it was, “violating the civil code of Canada by not hiring a well qualified applicant due to malice and intentional negligence.” He claims that the defendant and its hiring manager violated the Canadian Charter, the Competition Act and the Human Rights Code. He also pleads that several employers have done this to him over the past six months, “under an umbrella organized crime gang” that is out to destroy him. He traces the gang to an FBI terrorist who threatened his life three times on the campus of Louisiana Tech in the USA sometime prior to 2007.

[4] There is no right to a job interview at common law. There is no such thing as “intentional negligence.” The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to private sector employment. While the Human Rights Code could be applicable to a job interview, nothing said in the statement of claim raises a justiciable claim before this court under that statute. The plaintiff relies as well on allegations of deceptive marketing practices under Part VII.1 of the Competition Act for which no civil remedy is provided in court.

[5] It appears on the face of the statement of claim that the action may be frivolous or vexatious. The plaintiff therefore should be provided with an opportunity to explain in writing why the claim should not be dismissed at this time.

[6] 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];

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); and

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

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: August 14, 2015

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