Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00724171 DATE: October 1, 2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: SADAF SEGAR KAHN Applicant/Plaintiff

AND: CITY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, DIRECTOR COURT SERVICES AND MANAGER OF PROSECUTIONS Respondent/Plaintiff

BEFORE: Justice Papageorgiou

READ: October 1, 2024

Endorsement

[1] This Respondent, the City of Toronto, who appears to have been improperly named, made a request of the registrar pursuant to r. 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an Order that this proceeding be dismissed on the basis that, on its face, it is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

[2] The Respondent says that the essence of the claim is that the plaintiff’s driver’s licence was wrongfully suspended due to Highway Traffic Act violations issued against her, which she then appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice. It says that the claim, on its face is an abuse of process as it is a collateral attack on the regime established to prosecute breaches of the Highway Traffic Act and Provincial Offences Act, which is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice.

[3] The Statement of Claim does reference the above as being the damage that the plaintiff suffered; however, her claim is broader than that.

[4] She alleges that she did not receive sufficient assistance from court staff on how to proceed with these traffic tickets as a self-represented party. She says that the court lacked adequate guidelines for processing unresolved administration tickets and that several times when she physically presented to receive service, she was turned away. She also says accessibility issues in the court buildings pose a problem for persons with physical disabilities, as well as systemic discrimination against individuals with disabilities in court policies and procedures.

[5] She references the failure of court staff to consider her for special priority despite providing the correct paperwork filled in by her doctor.

[6] She claims that the discriminatory practices in court procedures that disadvantage persons with disabilities violates human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[7] She alleges negligence and gross recklessness.

[8] As set out in Myers, J.’s decision in Gao v. Ontario WSIB and Ontario Ombudsman, 2014 ONSC 6100, 37 C.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 9, r. 2.1.01(1) “is not meant for close calls” and decisions pursuant to this rule must be based upon whether the matter is, on its face frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

[9] This claim raises numerous issues including whether the defendant owes a duty of care, and whether a claim of this nature may be made to the Superior Court as opposed to through the appropriate human rights tribunal. There is also an absence of sufficient particulars.

[10] Although the plaintiff would certainly have a difficult time prosecuting a claim of this nature as a self-represented party, I am not satisfied that it is frivolous or vexatious on its face.

[11] I am directing that the parties attend at a case conference before me. I am directing that each of the parties provide me with a five-page memo on the issues set out in paragraph 9 above, referencing case law.

Justice Papageorgiou Date: October 1, 2024