Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00728193-0000 DATE: 20241101 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: Said Abdulkadir, Plaintiff -and- Toronto Police Service, Defendant

BEFORE: Robert Centa J.

COUNSEL: Said Abdulkadir, self-represented plaintiff John Reason, for the defendant

HEARD: November 1, 2024

Endorsement

[1] The registrar’s office referred this motion to me pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request from lawyers for the defendant, the misnamed Toronto Police Services, under rule 2.1.01(6), requesting that this action be dismissed.

[2] On October 15, 2024, I directed the registrar to give notice to Mr. Abdulkadir that the court was considering making an order dismissing the action under rule 2.1.01: Abdulkadir v. Toronto Police Service, 2024 ONSC 5703. The registrar provided that notice and invited Mr. Abdulkadir to make written submissions explaining why the action should not be dismissed. Mr. Abdulkadir did not provide any submissions.

[3] I conclude that the action is frivolous and vexatious. I dismiss the action, without costs.

Rule 2.1

[4] Rule 2.1.01 permits the court to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. In Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100, Myers J. explained:

Rule 2.1 is not meant to apply to close calls. It is not a short form of summary judgment. But that does not mean that it is not to be robustly interpreted and applied. Where a proceeding appears on its face to meet the standards of frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, the court should be prepared to rigorously enforce the rule to nip the proceeding in the bud. Rigorous enforcement of this rule will not only protect respondents from incurring unrecoverable costs, but should positively contribute to access to justice by freeing up judicial and administrative resources that are so acutely needed to implement the “culture shift” mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The new rule tailors appropriate procedural fairness for the category of cases involved and is an example of early resolution of civil cases that is very much in line with the goals set out in Hryniak.

[5] The Court of Appeal approved of this approach in Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.

[6] A frivolous or vexatious action lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been brought without reasonable grounds. Frivolous and vexatious proceedings are often identified by, among other features, their use of rambling language which makes discerning a legitimate cause of action very difficult: Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692, at para. 11.

[7] The court is not to use rule 2.1.01 for close calls. However, neither the opposing parties nor the court should be required to devote scarce resources to proceedings or motions that are clearly frivolous and vexatious. Allowing such proceedings to occupy space on the court docket takes time away from other, more meritorious cases. There is simply no benefit to allowing clearly frivolous and vexatious proceedings to continue: Dunning v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2023 ONSC 73, at para. 26; Foley v. Victoria Hospital London Health Services Centre, 2023 ONSC 4978, at para. 5.

The action is frivolous and vexatious

[8] I have reviewed the statement of claim and conclude that this action is frivolous and vexatious. The statement of claim in seeks $50 million dollars. The only text explaining or supporting the plaintiff’s claim reads as follows:

Missed 2 flights, purchased 2021, the police told me I could not travel on my purchased flight. I cost [sic] no problems, the police asked if I had gang ties.

[9] The statement of claim attaches an undated article from the Edmonton Journal that relates to a person named Abdullahi Ahmed Abdullahi, who faced an extradition proceeding to the United States of America for terrorism offences. According to the article, Mr. Abdullahi had previously been arrested on a robbery charge, along with a person named Said Mohamed Abdulkadir, who may (or may not) be the plaintiff.

[10] I find that this statement of claim does not articulate a basis for a legally cognizable claim against the defendant. I find that the statement of claim does not plead any material facts that could support a claim for damages, much less the $50 million claimed by the plaintiff. The action is frivolous in the sense that it has no chance of success. I also find that the plaintiff has commenced this action without reasonable grounds, which is vexatious.

[11] If the plaintiff had provided submissions, he may have been able to persuade me otherwise, but he did not do so.

[12] I find that the action is frivolous and vexatious. I dismiss the action under rule 2.1.01, without costs.

Robert Centa J. Date: November 1, 2024