Court File and Parties
Court File No.: 15-65212
Date: August 24, 2015
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE- ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
ABDUL RAZAQ RAJI and SHERLEY LEANDRE
Plaintiff
AND
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE (RCMP) and CANADIAN SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (CSIS)
Defendant
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 a written requisition of the Attorney General of Canada improperly named as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian Security and Intelligence Services. The requisition was copied to the Plaintiffs.
[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 these 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- 64780 – Raji and Leandre v. T D Bank, Royal Bank of Canada and Perell Jowell
Court File No. 15-64779 – Raji and Leandre v. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 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
[5] Requisitions pursuant to Rule 2.1 have also been filed in Court File No. 15- 64780 and Court File No. 15- 64969 and Court File No. 15-64779. I have already directed the registrar to give notice to the Plaintiffs in those proceedings that I am considering making an order pursuant to this Rule dismissing those proceedings.
[6] The Statement of Claim in this case is very similar in nature to the claims in the above referenced proceedings. First, there is a claim for an extremely large amount of damages; in this case the amount of $939 million against each defendant for a total of $1.878 billion dollars. There are additional claims for aggravated damages and punitive damages which total a further $1.878 billion.
[7] Second, there are the familiar calls or an investigation into an alleged terrorist plot against the Plaintiffs and their children. The claim seeks orders of immediate arrest and commencement of criminal charges against senior officials of the RCMP and CSIS and specifically names the Prime Minister of Canada.
[8] The allegations in this case also refer to the Plaintiff Raji’s nine-year-old daughter who is the focus in the claim against Sandra Herrera. There are references once again to a group of children referred to in this and other proceedings as “The Children” who have been produced artificially and are allegedly being abused in the worst of ways by members of a criminal gang that the Defendants are said to be harbouring.
[9] There are references to the Downtown Legal Services of Toronto; the TD Bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Justice Paul Perell (incorrectly named as Perell Jowell), the Windsor Regional Hospital, the Children’s Aid Society, the Ontario office of the Children’s Lawyer other judges of the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto as well as a judge of the Ontario Family Court. Many of these individuals are named defendants in other proceedings commenced by the Plaintiffs. This pleading simply recirculate allegations previously made.
[10] The Statement of Claim is replete with accusations and questions. To say that the Statement of Claim does not comply with the basic rules of pleadings is a significant understatement. This proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse 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 24, 2015