Court File and Parties

Lindsay Court File No.: CV-24-000000037-0000 Date: 2024-05-31 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Mehroz Mahjabin, Plaintiff And: Attorney General of Canada, Defendant

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice R.E. Charney

Counsel: Mehroz Mahjabin, Self-Represented Uyên Tran, Counsel for the Defendant

Heard: In-Writing

Endorsement

[1] On May 16, 2024, I directed the Registrar to give notice to the Plaintiff that the Court was considering dismissing the Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

[2] The Plaintiff filed her submissions on May 21, 2024.

[3] The Court has now reviewed the Plaintiff’s submissions and concludes that the action must be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

[4] The Statement of Claim claims $100 Billion from the Defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, for various claims such as violation of procedure, violation of human rights, violation of various provisions of the Criminal Code, professional negligence, fraud, extortion, hate crime and human trafficking of a minor. The claim relates to various court orders and endorsements by Superior Court judges in Brampton, Toronto and the Divisional Court. The Plaintiff claims that these Orders were fraudulent and negligent.

[5] The Statement of Claim lists the following judicial orders that are “required for Review in accordance with the law”, and apparently form the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Attorney General of Canada:

Brampton Court

1. Order of Justice Trimble dated October 3, 2023 (Violation of rule 13.01.01(2))
2. Order of Justice Fragomeni dated October 6, 2023 (violation of rule 19.02(1)(b))
3. Order of Justice Bloom, dated October 25, 2023 (violation of practise direction and rule for noting in default as well as issuing an order which does not correspond with the ruling of the case.)
4. Endorsement of Justice Ricchetti, November 30, 2023 (violation of an existing order dated October 25, 2023)
5. Endorsement and order of Justice Ricchetti dated December 21, 2023. (violation of 19.02(1)(b), violation of order dated October 25, 2023, allegations without evidence as per 2(3) of Judicial Review Act)
6. Endorsement and order of Justice Ricchetti dated January 23, 2023 (fraudulent)

Toronto Superior Court

7. Endorsement of Justice D Wilson dated February 8, 2024

Divisional Court of Toronto

8. Endorsement of the Panel of Divisional Court dated February 23, 2024 (violation of rule 62.02(4) and 62.02(1))

[6] The Statement of Claim, which is 129 paragraphs long, makes multiple allegations against each of the above judges of the Superior Court relating to their various decisions in legal proceedings involving the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleges that the Department of Justice is responsible for these decisions.

[7] The Plaintiff’s submissions reiterate her dissatisfaction with the referenced judicial decisions, and explains why she objects to these decisions.

[8] Rule 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. The process is not for “close calls”. The action is to be dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 only if the frivolous, vexatious, or abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading: Scaduto v. LSUC, 2015 ONCA 733, at para. 8.

[9] Although 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, at para. 18:

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.

[10] The Court’s “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”: Mohammad v. McMaster University, 2021 ONSC 3494.

[11] Having carefully reviewed the Statement of Claim, I am satisfied that it discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant or anyone else.

[12] Persons exercising judicial functions, whether in court proceedings or otherwise in the course of their judicial function, are exempt from all civil liability for anything done or said by them in their judicial capacity. This immunity is such that even if a judge’s acts or words complained of are alleged to have been spoken in bad faith, maliciously, corruptly, or without reasonable or probable cause, they are not actionable: Morier and Boily v. Rivard, [1985] 2 SCR 716; McPherson v. Campbell, 2019 NSCA 23, at para. 24; Salasel v. Cuthbertson, 2015 ONCA 115, at para. 35; McIntosh v. Shore, 2024 ONSC 1767.

[13] The Plaintiff is entitled to appeal, or seek leave to appeal, or seek judicial review from a decision that she believes to be wrongly decided. But the doctrine of judicial immunity bars claims for compensation in these circumstances: Joshi v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 2444, at para. 19; Chevalier v. Williams, 2022 ONSC 4188, at para. 6.

[14] Nor can the Plaintiff circumvent the doctrine of judicial immunity by naming the Attorney General of Canada as the Defendant. Although Superior Court judges are appointed by the Governor General of Canada under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the judiciary is an independent branch of government, and the Attorney General is not responsible for the decisions of the judiciary.

[15] No cause of action arises against the Attorney General of Canada or the Crown for judicial decisions, nor are they vicariously liable for decisions of judges or tribunals: Lina Ahmed v. Ministry of the Attorney General, 2020 ONSC 7892, at para. 10, aff’d on appeal, Ahmed v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 427, at para. 6.

Conclusion

[16] The Statement of Claim does not disclose a cause of action and the action is dismissed.

Justice R.E. Charney Date: May 31, 2024