COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00003744-00
DATE: 2021 06 10
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Syed Rehman v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service
BEFORE: André J.
COUNSEL: Self Represented, for the Plaintiff
E. Atkinson, for the Defendant
HEARD: June 7, 2021
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The Attorney General of Canada (“AGC”), misidentified as “Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (“CSIS”) by the Plaintiff, Mr. Syed Owaisur Rehman, seeks an order striking out Mr. Rehman’s Statement of Claim on the grounds that it is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and discloses no reasonable cause of action.
Background
[2] In his Statement of Claim dated October 1, 2020, the Plaintiff claims in para. 3 that:
Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or ‘CSIS’ has subjected me to criminal harassment, humiliation, racism, and intimidation in various ways by using their own employees, other agencies, and members of the community. Moreover, all this has been going on for at least 12 years.
[3] In subsequent paragraphs he claims that since 2008 he has received telephone calls from various members of the public and has been followed by at least one vehicle. He stated that his car was vandalized and that the police harassed him frequently. Mr. Rehman believes, without providing any evidence, “that it was CSIS using the police to harass me”. He also pleads that in January 2019, he was regularly harassed at work by co-workers and his supervisor and that he told his union representative that the hostility he experienced at work was caused by CSIS. He also claims that he experienced similar treatment at Islamic centres he visited which he attributes to the machinations of CSIS. Mr Rehman further states that strange vehicles would follow his vehicle in a very intimidating manner which he pleads was the responsibility of CSIS. He asserts that for the four years he has been residing in his apartment, he had experienced the “dropping of heavy stuff over my roof 1000s of times”, which he believes is the handiwork of CSIS.
[4] Mr. Rehman, based on these statements, seeks “general and pecuniary damages” against CSIS on account of the “emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and shame, psychological and emotional trauma”, he has experienced, “due to the unlawful actions of CSIS”.
[5] Mr. Rehman noted during the hearing of this motion that he currently has no evidence linking CSIS to his experiences but that he believes that his former employer may know that CSIS had been investigating him.
Analysis
[6] The AGC seeks to strike Mr. Rehman’s Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (“the Rules”) or alternatively, under Rule 25.11 (b) and (c) because the action is “frivolous, vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of process of the court”.
The Law
[7] Rule 21 provides as follows:
RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL
WHERE AVAILABLE
To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,
and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly.
(2) No evidence is admissible on a motion,
(a) under clause (1) (a), except with leave of a judge or on consent of the parties;
(b) under clause (1) (b).
To Defendant
(3) A defendant may move before a judge to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that,
Action Frivolous, Vexatious or Abuse of Process
(d) the action is frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly.
[8] In Salasel v. Cuthbertson, 2015 ONCA 115, 124 O.R. (3d) 401, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated at para. 8 that a court may invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Rule 21.01(3)(d) to dismiss or stay an action that represents a clear case of abuse of process:
Rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits a defendant to move to stay or dismiss an action on the ground that “the action is frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court”. Any action for which there is clearly no merit may qualify for classification as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, with a common example being the situation where a plaintiff seeks to re-litigate a cause which has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. A court only invokes its authority under rule 21.01(3)(d) or pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss or stay an action in the clearest of cases: Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board (2003), 2003 CanLII 7815 (ON CA), 233 D.L.R. (4th) 657 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 17 and 18.
[9] Rule 25.11(b) states that a court may strike out all or part of a pleading with or without leave to amend, if the pleading is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. In Focker et al. v. Eisen et al. 2012 ONSC 5435, at para. 27, the court noted that:
Rule 25.11(b) provides that the court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. A pleading that contains a complete absence of material facts is considered frivolous and vexatious. Bare allegations, particularly of intentional or malicious conduct are scandalous: Aristocrat Restaurants Ltd. (c.o.b. Tony’s East) v. Ontario, 2003 CarswellOnt 5574 (S.C.J.) at para.21.
[10] The Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim raises the following issues:
Does it disclose a reasonable cause of action, pursuant to Rule 21.01(b)?
Should the action commenced by Mr. Rehman be stayed or dismissed pursuant to Rule 21.01(3)(d) or Rule 25.11(b) because it is frivolous, vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court?
[11] In my view, it is plain and obvious that Mr. Rehman’s pleadings discloses no reasonable cause of action and should therefore be struck: see R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, at para. 17.
[12] Furthermore, Mr. Rehman’s Statement of Claim is devoid of material facts and instead contains a series of allegations and accusations stitched together by suspicion, supposition and unfounded beliefs rather than being substantiated by any material facts. There are simply no facts, material or otherwise, that establish any nexus between Mr. Rehman’s personal circumstances and experiences, and CSIS. His beliefs and claims cannot be a substitute for facts that link any of the incidents he describes to CSIS.
[13] As a result, Mr. Rehman’s pleadings should be struck in their entirety.
Order
[14] Order to go that Mr. Rehman’s Statement of Claim is struck in its entirety.
Costs
[15] In my view, costs should be awarded against Mr. Rehman, given the patent deficiencies in his Statement of Claim. However, he is unemployed and on welfare. An imposition of costs against him would therefore serve no useful purpose.
[16] There will therefore be no order for costs in this matter.
André J.
DATE: June 10, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00003744-00
DATE: 2021 06 10
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Syed Rehman
-and-
Canadian Security Intelligence Service
BEFORE: André J.
COUNSEL: Self Represented, for the Plaintiff
E. Atkinson, for the Defendant
ENDORSEMENT
André J.
DATE: June 10, 2021