Rahman v. Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 1210

Court File No.: CV-23-00707409-0000
Date: 2025-02-24
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
Mijanur Rahman, Applicant
-and-
Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, Financial Services Tribunal of Ontario, FP Canada, and Ontario Securities Commission, Respondents

Before: Robert Centa

Appearances:

• Mijanur Rahman, self-represented applicant
• Jordan Stone, for the respondent FP Canada
• Michael Scott, for the respondent FSRAO
• Jessica Fiore, for the respondent FST
• Kirsten Thoreson, for the respondent OSC

Heard: 2025-02-21

Endorsement

[1] The registrar’s office referred this motion to me pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, following receipt of a written request under rule 2.1.01(6) from the lawyers for the respondent FP Canada. [1]

[2] On February 10, 2025, I directed the registrar to give notice to Mr. Rahman that the court was considering making an order dismissing the application under rule 2.1.01. [2] The registrar notified Mr. Rahman and invited him to make written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed. Mr. Rahman provided written submissions, which I have reviewed.

[3] I dismiss the application because I find it to be frivolous.

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. [3]

[5] The Court of Appeal approved of this approach. [4]

[6] A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been brought without reasonable grounds. [5] A frivolous proceeding is one that is readily recognizable as devoid of merit, as one having little prospect of success. [6] A frivolous application is one that will necessarily or inevitably fail. [7]

[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 that are clearly frivolous. 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 proceedings to continue. [8]

The Application is Frivolous

[8] I conclude the application is frivolous because it will inevitably fail.

[9] First, the notice of application is not in appropriate form. The notice of application itself includes an unsworn affidavit and exhibits that include various pieces of correspondence, and personal identity documents. At a minimum, the notice of application would need to be struck out with leave to deliver one in proper form. However, there are much more serious problems with the application.

[10] The application seeks an order in the following form:

1. This court orders FSRA to the reinstate applicant's LLQP licence.
2. This court orders FSRA to lift restrictions (if any) and renew the LLQP licence# 10117224.
3. This court orders FSRA to waive licensing renewal costs for the next 3 years.
4. This court orders FP Canada to the reinstate applicant's FPEl licence to QAFP.
5. This court orders FP Canada to waive OAFP certificate renewal costs for the next 3 years.
6. This court orders the Ontario Securities Commission to lift restrictions (if any) to allow the applicant to carry on Financial Consulting Business.

[11] This relief is not available on an application to the Superior Court of Justice and, therefore, the application is frivolous.

[12] Mr. Rahman purports to bring this application under rule 14.05. However, rule 14.05 assumes jurisdiction, it does not create it. Mr. Rahman has not identified a statute that permits him to commence this proceeding by way of application. [9] Mr. Rahman states that the application is brought under s. 392.5(11) of the Insurance Act. [10] That section authorizes the Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority to reinstate a licence that has been revoked for non-payment of a fee or administrative penalty. It does not authorize the commencement of an application in the Superior Court of Justice.

[13] Similarly, Mr. Rahman is not seeking the type of relief that is contemplated by rule 14.05(3). Although Mr. Rahman makes a passing reference seeking a remedy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notice of application does not allege that any of his rights under the Charter were infringed. Moreover, the law is clear that the Charter does not protect a person’s access to a licence because that is only an economic interest, which is not subject to Charter protection. [11] Any such application would be doomed to fail.

[14] While Mr. Rahman could conceivably seek to obtain the relief he desires by way of either statutory appeal (if one is available) or application for judicial review pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act (if the decisions were made in the exercise of a statutory power of decision or had a sufficiently public character), he may not do so by way of an application in the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to Rule 14. [12]

[15] This application is frivolous because it will necessarily or inevitably fail. I dismiss the action pursuant to rule 2.1.01(1), without costs.

Robert Centa
Date: 2025-02-24

Endnotes

[1] Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
[2] Rahman v. Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 924.
[3] Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100.
[4] Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.
[5] Annotation to rule 2.1 in Ontario Superior Court Practice, the Hons. Todd Archibald, Stephen Firestone and Tamara Sugunasiri; Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692, at para. 11.
[6] Gill v. MacIver, 2023 ONCA 776, at para. 3; Lavallee v. Isak, 2022 ONCA 290, at para. 19; Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 643, at para. 19.
[7] R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11, at para. 67.
[8] 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.
[9] Rule 14.05(2).
[10] Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.
[11] Thibault and Ramsay v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 647, at para. 82; Mussani v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario; Tanase v. College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, 2021 ONCA 482.
[12] Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c J.1; Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall, 2018 SCC 26; N. (J.) v. Durham Regional Police Service, 2012 ONCA 428.