Ali v. Maria (Manager), 2025 ONSC 1543

COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-3606
DATE: 2025-03-10
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Shaukat Ali, Plaintiff
AND: Maria (Manager), Defendant
BEFORE: M.T. Doi
COUNSEL:

• Shaukat Ali, self-represented Plaintiff
• Shayna Levine-Poch, for the Defendant
  HEARD: March 10, 2025 (in writing)

Endorsement

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194, after defendant’s counsel asked 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] By Endorsement dated October 18, 2024, I indicated that the court was considering whether to dismiss the action for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and called upon the plaintiff to provide written submissions as to why the statement of claim should not be dismissed. The time for submissions has passed without the plaintiff making any.

[3] Rule 2.1.01 is a gatekeeping mechanism by which the court may stay or dismiss litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 at para 8, leave to appeal refused 2016. It is well-established that rule 2.1 is not for close calls, but is applied robustly 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 at paras 8-9; Robson v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 860 at para 3; Sumner v. Ottawa (Police Services), 2023 ONCA 140 at para 9; Wu v. Toronto (City), 2024 ONCA 810 at para 3.

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

[5] A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis or legal merit, or is brought without reasonable grounds and is readily recognizable as being devoid of merit with little to no realistic chance of success: Rahman v. Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 1210 at para 6; Cummings v. Martin, 2025 ONSC 1119 at para 6; Buehlmann-Miyake v. Buhlmann, 2025 ONCA 131 at para 3; Gill v. MacIver, 2023 ONCA 776 at para 3; Lavallee v. Isak, 2022 ONCA 290 at para 19.

[6] Neither the opposing parties nor the court should be required to devote scarce resources to clearly frivolous proceedings as they take time away from other more meritorious cases: Rahman at para 7. Rule 2.1 serves an important role in screening out frivolous claims that lack merit: Kokic v. Johnson, 2025 ONCA 4 at para 6; Buehlmann-Miyake at para 3.

[7] For the reasons that follow, I find that the statement of claim is clearly frivolous as it does not articulate a basis for making a legally recognized claim and, therefore, is incapable of success. The statement of claim makes a number of disjointed comments about government officials or programs that are not coherent and lack an evidentiary foundation or particulars to support a viable claim at law. The claim also makes bald, broad, and vague assertions of corruption by government employees or public servants without setting out a legally recognizable or perceptible basis for advancing any such claim.

[8] The statement of claim refers to a heart attack at the Brampton Courthouse that the plaintiff suffered on April 23, 2024, indicates that the plaintiff is separated from children, and refers to government policies or conduct by authorities that relate to parenting children and the right to religious freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the claim does not set out a legally identifiable or discernable basis for bringing a claim against the defendant. Having read the statement of claim in the broadest and least-critical manner, and with generous allowances for drafting imprecisions, I find that the claim does not assert a cause of action or plead any material facts to support a perceivable claim for damages or any other relief. The plaintiff did not file any submissions to explain why the action should proceed after an opportunity was given to make submissions.

[9] This is not a close call. The statement of claim is clearly frivolous by making broad and unsustainable allegations that have no prospect of success. Respectfully, I find that the statement of claim will inevitably fail for lacking reasonable grounds on its face.

[10] Based on the foregoing, the action is dismissed under rule 2.1.01 without costs.

Date: March 10, 2025
M.T. Doi