Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-23-00000499-00 Date: 2023 12 21 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton ON L6W 4T6

Re: Mehroz Mahjabin And: Toronto District School Board

Before: Justice Ricchetti

Counsel: Self-represented, for the Plaintiff Kirsh Chakraborty, for the Defendant, Toronto District School Board (TDSB)

Heard: December 21, 2023, Video Conference

Endorsement

[1] The Plaintiff brings this motion for default judgment.

[2] The court refused to hear this motion and stayed this action pending further order of this court. These are my reasons for doing so.

[3] The Plaintiff wrote a letter to this court on December 12, 2023 making various statements of alleged facts and submissions, none or which are properly before this court as evidence upon which this court can rely.

The Brampton Action

[4] Mehroz Mahjabin is the Plaintiff. TDSB is the Defendant.

[5] The Statement of Claim was issued on February 13, 2023.

[6] Mahjabin amended the claim and served a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim on July 4, 2023 (served on July 19, 2023).

[7] A Notice of Intent to Defend was delivered by TDSB on July 17, 2023.

[8] The actions makes various claims by Mahjabin as the mother of her child, Aaron, arising from alleged actions and conduct by the TDSB towards her son as a student arising during and after COVID-19. Mahjabin claims she has suffered damages arising from the TDSB’s conduct towards her son.

[9] Mahjabin noted the TDSB in default on August 28, 2023.

[10] TDSB moved to set aside the noting in default. While the TDSB’s motion to set aside the noting in default was to be scheduled to be heard at Triage Court on October 19, 2023, Mahjabin scheduled and attended a motion on October 6, 2023 seeking default judgment against the TDSB. Justice Fragomeni adjourned the default judgment motion until after the motion to set aside was heard.

[11] The motion to set aside the noting in default in the Brampton Action was heard by J. Bloom on October 25, 2023. The order, issued on November 2, 2023, set aside the noting in default and provide that the TDSB was to bring its R. 21 motion in a timely manner. The Statement of Defence was to be delivered, if necessary, 30 days after the R.21 motion was decided.

[12] What is admitted by Mahjabin is that she recorded the entire hearing before J. Bloom, without a court order or advising the court she intended to do so, AND THEN POSTED THE HEARING ON YOUTUBE for a period of time (Mahjabin advised today that it has been removed). Mahjabin also advised this court she was not recording today’s hearing.

[13] TDSB brough this matter to Brampton’s Triage Court on November 28, 2023 to set a date for the R. 21 motion.

[14] Mahjabin submits that the TDSB did not move to bring the R. 21 motion in a “timely manner” as directed by J. Bloom. I reject this submission.

[15] On November 28, 2023, the court was advised that there were related proceedings involving the same facts, essentially the same parties, and with related damages claims, in Toronto, as were being advanced in the Brampton Action. More importantly, it appears that the Brampton action had no connection to Peel. The parties were in Toronto. The events were all in Toronto. The damages were suffered in Toronto. IN addition, at the time, Mahjabin was prohibited (although it is not clear why) from leaving the Toronto Region to even attend in the Brampton courthouse.

[16] Accordingly, this court did not schedule the R. 21 motion but endorsed the matter “Defendant will seek to transfer file to Toronto”..

[17] TDSB immediately wrote to RSJ Firestone requesting a transfer of the Brampton Action to Toronto. RSJ Firestone appointed Justice D. Wilson to hear the transfer motion.

[18] On December 7, 2023, J. Wilson set a schedule for delivery of materials for the transfer motion. TDSB was to deliver its materials by December 15, 2023. It did so. Mahjabin was to deliver its responding materials by December 29, 2023. Those materials are not yet due.

[19] Rather than deal with the transfer motion and a subsequent R. 21 motion (either in Brampton or Toronto), Mahjabin instead chose to issue, in Brampton, on November 16, 2023, an Amended Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim JUST 14 DAYS AFTER J. BLOOM’S ORDER WAS ISSUED. This was served on TDSB on November 21, 2023 along with a Jury Notice.

[20] Justice Bloom’s Order provided that the TDSB did not have to deliver a Statement of Defence until 30 days after the R. 21 motion was heard and only if the action was not dismissed. Accordingly, TDSB did not have to serve a Statement of Defence at this time provided TDSB moved in a timely was to bring its R. 21 motion, which it did, but was delayed, through no fault of the TDSB but rather this court directing that TDSB seek to transfer the Brampton Action to Toronto. TDSB also complied with that order promptly.

[21] Mahjabin’s action, by essentially ignoring J. Bloom’s order and, instead, issuing an Amended Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, turned the Brampton Action into a procedural nightmare as, by court order, no defence was due for the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim until after the R. 21 motion.

[22] To make matters worse, notwithstanding the pending appearance at the Triage Court to schedule the R. 21 motion, Mahjabin noted the TDSB in default on the Amended Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim on December 7, 2023, which is after the Triage Court appearance and after the TDSB wrote to RSJ Firestone to transfer the Brampton Action to Toronto and on the same day that J. Wilson set a timetable to hear the transfer motion.

[23] Hence, the scheduled Mahjabin default judgment motion.

The Previous Proceedings

[24] On or about March 8, 2021, Mahjabin as Litigation Guardian for her son, Aaron, commenced an action in the Superior Court in Court File No. CV-21-00658312-00CP in Toronto claiming damages arising from the alleged actions and conduct towards her son at school by the TDSB (the “Toronto Action”).

[25] As stated above, the Toronto Action relates to the same underlying factual basis and issues as those which form Mahjabin’s claim in the Brampton Action.

[26] On or about March 29, 2021, TDSB served and filed a Notice of Intent to Defend in the Toronto Action.

[27] On or about September 28, 2021, the Plaintiff commenced a Small Claims Court action in Court File No. SC-21-00007278-0000 (the “Second Toronto Action”) alleging the same underlying factual basis and issues as those which form Mahjabin’s claim in the Brampton Action and in the Toronto Action.

[28] In November 2021, TDSB was noted in default in the Second Toronto Action.

[29] On or about November 22, 2021, TDSB brough a motion in the Second Toronto Action requesting that the noting in default be set aside and that the action be stayed pending the determination of the Toronto Action. The motion was granted setting aside the noting in default and staying the Second Toronto Action “pending the withdrawal or other final determination” in the Toronto Action.

[30] On or about December 14, 2022, Mahjabin issued a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in the Toronto action.

[31] On or about February 28, 2023, TDSB served and filed a Statement of Defence in the Toronto Action.

Analysis

[32] Under s. 11(2) of the CJA: “[t]he Superior Court of Justice has all the jurisdiction, power and authority historically exercised by courts of common law and equity in England and Ontario.” This includes the court having jurisdiction to control its own process, in particular, to ensure there is no abuse of its process of where it is necessary in the interests of justice.

[33] In 80 Wellesley Street East Limited v. Fundy Bay Builders Limited et al., [1972] 2 O.R. 280 (Ont. C.A.), at p.282, Brooke J.A., writing for the Ontario Court of Appeal, offered this broad statement about the breadth of this court’s inherent jurisdiction:

As a superior Court of general jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Ontario has all the powers that are necessary to do justice between the parties. Except where provided specifically to the contrary, the Court’s jurisdiction is unlimited and unrestricted in substantive law in civil matters.

[34] This statement was later adopted by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Glover v. Glover et al., [1980] O.J. No. 3676 (Ont. C.A.), aff’d (1982) , 130 D.L.R. (3d) 383 (S.C.C.), at para. 19. There, the court also referred with approval to the:

“helpful article entitled “Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court” (1970), 23 Curr. . Prob. 23, [where] Master Jacob points out that inherent jurisdiction is the reserve or fund of powers which the Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just or equitable to do so. He goes on to emphasize that this is not an unlimited jurisdiction and that it cannot be exercised in contravention of any statutory provision.”

(See also Shoppers Trust Co. (c.o.b. Shoppers Leasing) v. Mann Taxi Management Ltd. (c.o.b. Mann Auto Services), [1993] O.J. No. 2368 (“Shopper’s Trust”), at para.8.)

[35] Cromwell J. in Endean v. British Columbia, 2016 SCC 14, described the broad limits of the court’s inherent jurisdiction stating:

23 The inherent powers of superior courts are central to the role of those courts, which form the backbone of our judicial system. Inherent jurisdiction derives from the very nature of the court as a superior court of law and may be defined as a “reserve or fund of powers” or a “residual source of powers”, which a superior court “may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just or equitable to do so, and in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to present improper vexation or oppression, to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial between them.

[36] It is just and equitable to grant the temporary stay of the Brampton Action to prevent the continued abuse of the administration of justice in these circumstances.

[37] I am satisfied that, in these circumstance, it is in the interests of justice that the Brampton Action be temporarily stayed until further order or this court and that this motion for default judgement should not be heard at this time.

[38] I come to this conclusion because: a) Mahjabin’s conduct has been shocking by recording these proceedings and then post them to YouTube. That conduct is indicative of a plaintiff that has utter disregard for the court, the laws and, more importantly, chooses to use such actions and conduct to intimidate this court to decided matters in her favour. b) Mahjabin’s decision to issue multiple actions, relating to the same factual basis, in multiple jurisdictions, is abusive and entirely disregards the efficient use of court’s administrative and judicial resources. The fact that one proceeding is by Mahjabin is as litigation guardian seeing damages for her son and another proceeding is Mahjabin seeking damages for herself entirely disregards the fact that the underlying facts which form the basis of the two claims are entirely related. If both were allowed to proceed it could result in inconsistent findings of fact and inconsistent judgments. It would also require duplicative effort by TDSB and this court. c) Mahjabin brought two proceedings in Toronto, one “on behalf of” her son and one as “litigation guardian” of her son. While the Second Toronto Action has been stayed, this demonstrates the conduct by Mahjabin to abuse the legal system to achieve her end goal. d) Mahjabin’s decision to issue a further amended pleading in the Brampton Action, when the court had set aside the noting of default in the Brampton Action AND no defence was due from TDSB AND notwithstanding that TDSB moved promptly to schedule the R. 21 motion, was clearly abusive, manipulative and improper conduct and designed to once again set up another noting in default and avoid the court proper process. e) Mahjabin’s decision to note the TDSB in default while the transfer motion was before the court is clearly and unquestionably improper and abusive.

[39] I recognize that the Plaintiff is self represented, but that is no excuse for the above conduct which cannot and should not be tolerated by the court.

[40] The temporary stay of the Brampton Action does not deal with the merits of the Plaintiff’s claim but ensures that the transfer motion can be heard, and subsequently the R. 21 motion will be heard (whether in Toronto or Brampton).

[41] Accordingly, the Brampton Action is temporarily stayed pending further order of this court.

Costs

[42] TDSB shall have three weeks to submit written cost submissions (two-page limit), together with any Offers to Settle and any authorities.

[43] Mahjabin shall have two weeks thereafter to submit responding cost submissions (two-page limit) together with any Offers to Settle and any authorities.

[44] There will be no reply submissions.

Released: December 21, 2023 RSJ Ricchetti.