Endorsement

Introduction

Court File No.: CV-24-3603
Date: 2025-03-03
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Shaukat Ali, Plaintiff
And: Peel Police (11 Division), Defendant

Before: M.T. Doi
Counsel:

• Shaukat Ali, self-represented Plaintiff
• Michelle Isenstein, for the Defendant

Heard: March 3, 2025

Background

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office under rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194, after receipt of a request by defendant’s counsel under rule 2.1.01(6) to have the action dismissed for not pleading a cause of action and appearing on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process of the court.

[2] On October 1, 2024, I noted that the action may be frivolous, vexatious, or abusive and called on the plaintiff to provide written submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed. The allotted time for submissions has passed without the plaintiff making any.

[3] As explained below, I am satisfied that the action is frivolous and should be dismissed without costs.

Legal Framework

[4] Under rule 2.1.01, the court may stay or dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Rule 2.1 is interpreted and applied robustly so a motion judge may effectively exercise their gatekeeping function to dismiss litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The use of rule 2.1 is limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis for resorting to this attenuated process: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 at para 8; Sumner v. Ottawa (Police Services), 2023 ONCA 140 at para 9; Wu v. Toronto (City), 2024 ONCA 810 at para 3.

[5] A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis, or legal merit, or is brought without reasonable grounds and is readily recognized as devoid of merit with little prospect of success: Rahman v. Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 1210 at para 6; Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692 at para 11; 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. A frivolous action is one that will necessarily or inevitably fail: Rahman at para 6.

[6] A motion under rule 2.1 focuses on the pleadings and any submissions made by the parties under the rule. No evidence is submitted on a rule 2.1 motion: Scaduto at paras 9 and 11-12.

[7] The court should not 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 a clearly frivolous proceeding to remain on the court docket is not beneficial and takes time away from other more meritorious cases: Rahman at para 7.

Analysis

[8] Having read the statement of claim in the broadest and least-critical manner, with generous allowances for drafting deficiencies, I find that the claim is clearly frivolous and will inevitably fail for lacking reasonable grounds: Sumner at para 9. The claim does not assert a cause of action and pleads no material facts to support a claim for damages or other relief against the defendant. The claim refers to an incident at the Brampton Courthouse on April 23, 2024 when the plaintiff suffered a heart attack, indicates that the plaintiff is separated from children, and refers to “corrupt Canadian police constables” but without articulating a legally recognizable or perceptible claim against the defendant. Regrettably, the plaintiff seems to be dealing with health issues and other hardship. That said, it is clear that the statement of claim does not establish a viable or meritorious claim against the defendant.

[9] Taking this all into account, I find that the statement of claim is clearly frivolous for having no legal basis, merit or reasonable grounds and, therefore, no chance of success. The plaintiff did not make any submissions to suggest otherwise.

Conclusion

[10] Accordingly, the action is dismissed under rule 2.1.01 without costs.

Date: March 3, 2025
M.T. Doi