Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: AHMAD MOHAMMAD Plaintiff
AND:
McMASTER UNIVERSITY Defendant
BEFORE: Chalmers, J.
COUNSEL: A. Mohammad, self-represented
G. Avraam, for the Defendant
HEARD: In Writing
ENDORSEMENT
OVERVIEW
1By endorsement dated March 18, 2021, I directed the Registrar to give notice to the Plaintiff that the court is considering making an order pursuant to R. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to stay or dismiss the action. On March 19, 2021, the Registrar provided the Form R.2.A to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff provided his written submissions in response to the Notice.
2The Plaintiff is Ahmad Mohammad. He is self-represented. The Statement of Claim was issued on January 4, 2021. The Claim consists of 25 unnumbered paragraphs. There is no style of cause. The Claim does not set out the relief sought. Although the Claim refers to attachments, nothing is attached to the Claim. At best, the Claim can be described as an “unintelligible rambling discourse”: Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497, at para. 15. To illustrate, I quote the opening paragraph of the Claim (some of the words in the opening paragraph are missing in the Statement of Claim):
To give a brief note about my research, thus, you will be able to understand _________ been initiated. In fact, there are many famous professors in the field seeing _____________ scientist, including but not limited to Randolph Blake, the most famous visual ___________ globe. Dr. Blake wrote to me the following, “Judging from your CV and webpage you’re an energetic, expansive thinker with exciting ideas. I wish you the very best, _________with interest.” Dr. Bachmann, the editor-in-chief, of cognition and consciousness journal (Elsevier) however had written to me the following after one of my papers had awarded as the most readable paper in Canada and then in the entire globe for three weeks in a row: “Your hypothesis is extremely intriguing and, if correct, it would help solve this nagging issue of the ontology of consciousness.” This happens on May 4th, 2019 and McMaster had kicked me out on May 8th, 2019; serious indication about toxic intention against me. Dr. Zaki (who discovered MERS Coronoa Virus) sees me as multidisciplinary genius scientist; Dr. Campbell, however, sees me as an exceptional neuroscientist and he believes I can draw a new brain Atlas for the two integrative conscious brain. Some recommendations are attached.
3The Plaintiff’s written submissions are in a similar form and repeat many of the statements made in the Statement of Claim. In the written submissions, Mr. Mohammad confirms that he is bringing the action against McMaster University and CUPE 3096. Although the written submissions do not clearly set out the nature of Mr. Mohammad’s claims, he attached several documents to the written submissions which provides further information.
4In his written submissions, the Plaintiff states that he has high functioning autism, which was not diagnosed until 2015. He was a graduate student at the University. Attached to the written submissions is a letter from McMaster University to Mr. Mohammad dated August 29, 2017. The letter states that Mr. Mohammad is being readmitted to the Ph.D. program at the School of Computational Engineering. The letter also states that as a Ph.D. student he will receive an annual payment of $17,500 and is employed as a Teaching Assistant.
5At some point in early 2019, Mr. Mohammad was working on research with a professor of the University. Mr. Mohammad may have accused the professor with academic misconduct. Over the course of a weekend, Mr. Mohammad called the professor over 20 times and left aggressive messages. The University provided a persona non grata (PNG) letter to Mr. Mohammad on February 5, 2019. He was prohibited from entering McMaster University or communicating with any members of the McMaster community. Mr. Mohammad’s sisters met with the university on March 4, 2019 to argue that the PNG letter should be set aside. They had determined that it was Dr. Bakr that Mr. Mohammad had called and left aggressive and threatening messages. They had apologized to him. The Plaintiff’s doctor Catherine Munn also attempted to intervene. On March 7, 2019, Dr. Munn wrote to the University and asked if Mr. Mohammad could access the lab notwithstanding the PNG status.
6Mr. Mohammad retained a lawyer, Mureeza Sheikh who was acting on his behalf in April 2019. On April 12, 2019, there was an exchange between the University and Ms. Sheikh. The University stated that Mr. Mohammad would be able to return to the University only if he was evaluated by a psychiatrist who was agreeable to the University. Once again, his sisters intervened. They were told that McMaster insisted on the independent medical report before Mr. Mohammad could return to the University.
7Mr. Mohammad involved CUPE 3096 on May 8, 2019. By letter dated May 28, 2019, CUPE 3096 wrote to the University and took the position that the University “discriminated, interfered with and intimidated” Mr. Mohammad. CUPE 3096 states that the University failed to comply with the Collective Agreement and did not pursue the potential courses of action set out in the agreement. In his written submissions, Mr. Mohammad alleges that CUPE 3096 did not proceed with a grievance and delayed his case to accommodate the University.
8Mr. Mohammad alleges that the superintendent of his apartment, Catherine Phillips had a relationship with McMaster. He states that she allowed McMaster security to enter his apartment. He claims he was assaulted by the security guards. Mr. Mohammad also alleges that the police are working for McMaster. He states that February 21, 2020 the police entered his apartment and he was charged with criminal harassment.
9The Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the conduct of McMaster and CUPE 3096 he lost his dignity and reputation and his health was affected. After the issues with McMaster and CUPE 3096 he applied for a tenure-track assistant professor position at Queens University in psychology and neuroscience. He states that his application was terminated for “unknown reasons”. He states that he continues to publish articles. His application to the University of Ottawa for an associate professor position in artificial intelligence is on hold.
ANALYSIS
10The Defendants seek an Order pursuant to R. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to stay or dismiss the Plaintiffs’ action. R. 2.1.01 provides for a summary process to stay or dismiss a proceeding, if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, and/or an abuse of process.
11Rule 2.1.01 allows for the determination of whether the action is frivolous or vexatious at the very outset of the action. The process is in writing without an evidentiary record. It is aimed at clear cases of abuse. The process is not for “close calls”. The action is to be dismissed pursuant to R. 2.1.01 only if the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading: Raji v. Borden Ladner and Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801, at para. 9. The Court of Appeal provided the following direction with respect to the use of Rule 2.1.01.
Under this line of authority, the court has recognized that the rule should be interpreted and applied robustly so that a motion judge can effectively exercise his or her gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. However, the use of the rule should be limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process: Scaduto v. LSUC, 2015 ONCA 733 at para. 8.
12Although proceedings which are clearly frivolous or vexatious on their face should not be permitted to proceed, care must be taken to ensure that a claim which includes a legitimate complaint is not summarily dismissed. As noted in Gao v. Ontario WSIB and Ontario Ombudsman, 2014 ONSC 6497:
While rule 2.1 should be applied robustly to bring an early end to vexatious proceedings, the matters should not [be] considered lightly or dismissively. Care should be taken to allow generously for drafting deficiencies and recognizing that there may be a core complaint which is quite properly recognized as legitimate even if the proceeding itself is frivolously brought or carried out and ought to be dismissed: at para. 18.
13My task in deciding a motion brought pursuant to R. 2.1.01 is to look beyond drafting deficiencies to determine the nature of the Plaintiff’s complaint and whether that complaint is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
14I carefully reviewed Mr. Mohammad’s written submissions along with the Statement of Claim which was issued on January 4, 2021. I also reviewed the YouTube video dated August 2, 2020 which is referred to in both the Claim and the written submissions, and the documentation attached to the written submissions. As noted above, the Claim is structurally deficient. The paragraphs are not numbered. There is no style of cause and it is not clear against whom the action is brought. The Claim does not clearly set out the relief sought. The Claim does not plead a specific cause of action. It contains many of the hallmarks of querulous litigant behavior: Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497, at para. 15. The claim is rambling and repetitive. It has curious formatting. It is not well organized and goes off in tangents. It contains rhetorical questions. The written submissions are also rambling and disjointed. There is no clear narrative. The written submissions do not disclose a valid cause of action. I am satisfied that even when generously allowing for drafting deficiencies, there is no recognizable cause of action set out in the Statement of Claim: Nikou v. Karageorgos, 2019 ONCA 83, at paras. 8 - 10.
15The documents attached to the written submissions provide some assistance in determining the nature of Mr. Mohammad’s complaint. He claims that he was unfairly treated when he was declared persona non grata on February 5, 2019. According to the letter from CUPE 3096 dated May 28, 2019, Mr. Mohammad was discriminated against, and intimidated by, the University. CUPE 3096 takes the position that in sending the PNG letter, the University failed to pursue the potential courses of action set out in the Collective Agreement.
16I considered whether there is a legitimate complaint set out in the Claim, that Mr. Mohammad is unable to properly communicate. Unfortunately, the Claim and written submissions are unintelligible to me. I am unable to determine the Plaintiff’s core complaint against McMaster or CUPE 3096. It is only through the review of the documentation attached to the written submissions is it apparent that the Plaintiff’s complaint is that the University failed to follow the course of action set out in the Collective Agreement when he was declared persona non grata. The Plaintiff was unable to properly communicate this cause of action in the Statement of Claim.
17The determination of whether a proceeding is to be dismissed pursuant to R. 2.1.01 is to be made without a review of evidence. The documents attached to the written submissions are evidence and are not to be considered in determining whether the action is, on its face, frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process. I am satisfied that the proceeding is clearly frivolous and vexatious. I am satisfied that the Claim does not disclose a valid cause of action and has no chance of success. I dismiss the Claim, pursuant to R. 2.1.01.
18Although it is my view that the documents attached to the written submissions are not to be considered in determining whether the action is to be struck pursuant to R. 2.1.01, the information contained in the documents suggests that Mr. Mohammad may have a core complaint that was not been properly communicated in the Claim. I therefore order that the dismissal of the Claim is without prejudice to the Plaintiff delivering an amended Statement of Claim, which complies with the requirements of R. 25. If the Plaintiff wishes to deliver an amended Statement of Claim he must do so within 20 days of the date of this endorsement. The amended Claim must comply with the requirements of R. 25 and must disclose a valid cause of action as against the Defendants. If Mr. Mohammad fails to deliver an amended Statement of Claim within that time period, the Defendants may bring a motion before me to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action. If Mr. Mohammad delivers an amended Statement of Claim within that time period, the Defendants may renew their motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to R.2.1.01.
DISPOSITION
19I make the following order:
i. I dismiss the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, without prejudice to the Plaintiff delivering an Amended Statement of Claim that complies with the Rules of Civil Procedure and discloses a valid cause of action;
ii. If the Plaintiff wishes to deliver an Amended Statement of Claim he must do so within 20 days of the date of this endorsement. If he fails to provide an amended Statement of Claim within 20 days of this endorsement, the Defendants may move before me for an order dismissing the Plaintiff’s action; and
iii. If the Plaintiff delivers an Amended Statement of Claim within 20 days of this endorsement, the Defendants may renew their motion pursuant to R. 2.1.01.
20The Defendant does not request costs and as a result, I make no order as to costs.
21I remain seized.
Date: May 7, 2021