Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-23-697135-0000 Date: 2023-07-31 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Sameera Aara Rahman And: Health Canada et al.

Before: J.T. Akbarali J.

Counsel: Mijanur Rahman, father of the minor applicant, acting as applicant’s representative Sean Kissick, for the respondents Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health No one else appearing

Heard: In writing

Endorsement

[1] On June 6, 2023, I released an unpublished endorsement in this case under r. 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. In that endorsement, I concluded that the applicant should be called upon to make submissions as to why the application ought not to be dismissed under r. 2.1.01(1).

[2] The applicant is a minor who is not represented by a litigation guardian. The application and submissions were brought forward by her father, Mijanur Rahman, who has filed submissions as to why the application ought not to be dismissed under r. 2.1.01(1).

[3] The claim alleges that the child is the victim of “health abuse”, through exposure to hazardous or excessive ultrasound originating from apartments around the one in which the child lives together with her mother, or perhaps from unknown sources. The claim also alleges that wrongdoers who are unidentified performed unauthorized medical interventions that include placing implants in the child. The father has reported this alleged abuse to various authorities including police and the Children’s Aid Society.

[4] As I noted in my original endorsement, the relief sought in the application is pleaded in the form of rights, including the right of the minor applicant to receive equality and fairness in securing employment, and the right to prevent the theft of the assets that the minor applicant has or will receive in the future from her family members.

[5] I raised the concern in my endorsement that the application did not appear to clearly plead a tenable claim against the defendants, and that it seemed to seek relief that was not linked to the allegations made in the pleading.

[6] In his submissions explaining why the application ought not to be dismissed, Mr. Rahman did not engage with the substance of the concerns I raised in my endorsement. Rather, it is apparent from Mr. Rahman’s submissions that he does not understand the process that applies when r. 2.1.01(1) is raised.

[7] Rule 2.1.01(1) is a summary procedure available to the court to stay or dismiss a proceeding if, on its face, it is frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[8] In this case, as is typical, the consideration of the rule was triggered when the court received a letter from counsel for certain of the respondents asking the court to consider this application in the context of r. 2.1.01(1). No motion record or factum is delivered, or indeed, permitted. No oral hearing is held. Rather, on receipt of the letter from counsel, the application was directed to me for review in chambers. Having reviewed it, I issued my endorsement.

[9] At the second stage, I review the submissions received from the parties and make the determination that results in an endorsement either dismissing or staying the application under r. 2.1.01(1), or I find that the action ought not to be stayed or dismissed. In this case, as is typical, I have only the Notice of Application and written submissions of the parties when I make my determination. The process followed under r. 2.1.01(1) is a summary process, in accordance with the legislative direction set out in the text of the rule itself.

[10] Mr. Rahman raised in his submissions his concern that I may have a conflict with this matter. He has not moved for an order that I recuse myself from this motion. The alleged conflict relates to the fact that Mr. Rahman has separate litigation proceeding since 2018, in which my former law firm is a party. I ceased to be a member of my former firm in 2016, and I am not personally implicated in the litigation. I cannot discern from the pleading in that litigation, provided to me by Mr. Rahman, any reason why the separate litigation involves me at all. In the circumstances, and without a motion seeking my recusal, I see no reason not to proceed to determine the question of whether this action ought to be stayed or dismissed under r. 2.1.01(1).

[11] In my view, the application filed by Mr. Rahman is frivolous, vexatious, and abusive on its face. The facts pleaded do not link to the relief sought. The relief sought is imprecise and difficult to understand. For example, the application seeks the right to receive fair and equal support from the government, but it does not indicate how any support the applicant is (or is not) receiving is unfair or unequal. It seeks the prevention of theft of assets not yet received. Relief cannot flow for a wrong that has not been committed. Nor is there any indication how the prevention of theft ought to occur or who the assets must be protected from, or even why theft is suspected.

[12] The application seeks a permanent injunction to bring a stop to the health abuse of the applicant, but it does not identify the perpetrator of the abuse. It seeks the restoration of the applicant’s God-given natural health. The court cannot order restoration of a person’s health.

[13] The father may want an investigation into his fears for the applicant’s health but that is not what his application seeks.

[14] The application is not sustainable. I dismiss it under r. 2.1.01(1).

J.T. Akbarali J. Date: July 31, 2023