Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-83091 MOTION HEARD: 2020/03/30 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: ROGER CALLOW, Plaintiff AND: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE C. MACLEOD

BEFORE: Master Kaufman

COUNSEL: Roger Callow, representing himself.

HEARD: In writing

Reasons for Dismissal Under Rule 2.1

[1] Under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, the Court may, on its own initiative, dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of process. I am dismissing this claim for the following reasons.

[2] On February 19, 2020, Justice U.C. MacLeod dismissed one of the plaintiff’s actions, Court file 20-82659, pursuant to Rule 2.1. Justice MacLeod was able to discern from the claim that the plaintiff contested the suspension of his driver’s licence which resulted from a medical concern reported by his physician to the Ministry of Transportation. The plaintiff also made allegations against his sons, who apparently filed “a committal action” that resulted in him being detained for nine days. However, Justice MacLeod was not able to discern any cause of action in the six-paragraph statement of claim. He concluded that the claim failed to identify a remedy sought and a legal basis for the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction. Callow v. Jahagirdar, 2020 ONSC 1113.

[3] On March 9, 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action against Justice MacLeod. The only difference between the statement of claim in this action and the one that was before Justice MacLeod is paragraph 1. The other six paragraphs are identical and relate to the suspension of the plaintiff’s driver’s licence and his involuntary committal. In paragraph 1, the plaintiff alleges that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau failed to take action “on two legal matters relating to alleged ultra vires actions which negatively affect Justice Canada from sea to sea”. These legal actions allegedly made the plaintiff a “stateless individual”.

[4] The only reference to Justice MacLeod in the statement of claim is the following statement also contained in the first paragraph: “The peremptory order of Justice C. MacLeod with his ‘Final solution’ of bumping two major court actions from being heard for a priori reasons of being frivolous and vexatious for not showing a causal reason”.

[5] The only allegation against Justice MacLeod is that he dismissed the plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 2.1. It is clear that whatever concerns the plaintiff may have about Justice MacLeod’s dismissal of his previous action, these concerns need to be addressed by way of appeal and not by way of action against him. The allegation against Justice MacLeod arises out of his judicial role and, as a judge of the Superior Court, he enjoys absolute immunity from liability in the exercise of judicial functions. Tsai v. Klug, 2005 ONSC 2277, affirmed. Moreover, the remaining allegations have no connection to Justice MacLeod, who is the only named defendant in this action.

[6] In my view this is an appropriate case where the Court should exercise its power under Rule 2.1 to put an end to a frivolous and vexatious claim.

[7] The action is hereby dismissed. The Registrar shall send a copy of this decision to the plaintiff.

Master Kaufman Date: March 30, 2020