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: September 4, 2015

endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated August 14, 2015, reported at 2015 ONSC 5164, I directed the registrar to send a Form 2.1A to the plaintiff advising him that the court was considering dismissing this action for being frivolous or vexatious on its face. The plaintiff was invited to file written submissions explaining why the lawsuit should not be dismissed. The plaintiff filed written submissions dated September 1, 2015.

[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.

[4] In my prior endorsement I noted at para. 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] The plaintiff has sought to address these issues in his submissions. Ultimately, as noted in the prior endorsement, the plaintiff’s claims turns on the assertion that the defendant’s hiring manager and others are part of a conspiracy under which an “umbrella organized crime gang” has determined to ridicule the plaintiff, to cause him anguish, harass him, to torture and mentally target him ever since his life was threatened by an FBI terrorist at Louisiana Tech prior to 2007.

[6] The plaintiff’s action cannot succeed. Moreover, the case is of the type to which the attenuated process of Rule 2.1 ought to apply applicable. Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801 at para. 9.

[7] The action is therefore dismissed without costs.

[8] I dispense with any requirement for the plaintiff’s approval of the formal dismissal order as to form or content.

[9] I direct the registrar to provide a copy of this endorsement to the parties by mail and email (to those whose email addresses it has) and to serve the formal order on the plaintiff in accordance with rule 2.1.01(5).

________________________________ F.L. Myers J.

Date: September 4, 2015