Endorsement

Court File No.: CV-24-4376
Date: 2025-03-12
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Shaukat Ali, Plaintiff
And: Peel Children Aid Society, Defendant

Before: M.T. Doi
Counsel:
Shaukat Ali, self-represented Plaintiff
Carole Jenkins, for the Defendant

Heard: March 10, 2025 (in writing)

Introduction

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 a request was received from counsel for the defendant, The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, named incorrectly as Peel Children Aid Society, to have the action dismissed for appearing on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.

Background

On October 22, 2024, I endorsed that the court was considering whether to make an order under rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the action for being frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process, and called on the plaintiff to provide written submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed. The time for submissions passed without the plaintiff making any submissions.

Analysis

Respectfully, I find that the action is frivolous and should be dismissed without costs for the reasons that follow.

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 process. Rule 2.1 is interpreted and applied robustly so the court may effectively exercise its gatekeeping function to 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. Rule 2.1 is not applied to close calls but to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and supports the application of this attenuated process: Scaduto at paras 8-9, Sumner v. Ottawa (Police Services), 2023 ONCA 140 at para 9; Wu v. Toronto (City), 2024 ONCA 810 at para 3.

On a rule 2.1 motion, the court focuses on the pleadings and any submissions by the parties in deciding whether the proceeding on its face is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. No evidence is considered on a rule 2.1 motion: Scaduto at paras 9 and 11-12.

A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis, legal merit, or reasonable grounds, and is readily recognizable as being devoid of merit with little to no realistic prospect of success: Rahman v. Financial Services Regulatory Authority, 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.

Neither opposing parties nor the court should be required to devote scarce resources to clearly frivolous proceedings that 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.

Decision

I am satisfied that the statement of claim is clearly frivolous as it does not plead a legally recognized cause of action against the defendant. Having reviewed the statement of claim in the most generous and least-critical manner with allowances for drafting imprecisions, I find that it does not plead a cause of action or material facts to support a legally viable claim for damages or other relief against the defendant. Among other things, the statement of claim indicates that the plaintiff is separated from two biological daughters, ages 7 and 10 years, respectively, due to some unspecified criminal or unprofessional conduct. It refers to an incident at the Brampton Courthouse on April 23, 2024 when the plaintiff had a heart attack, and broadly alludes to police corruption and illegal actions by authorities with reference to religious freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the statement of claim does not assert a legally discernable or perceptible claim against the defendant. There is nothing in the statement of claim to explain what, if anything, the defendant did or did not do to implicate any legal liability. Much of the claim gives discourse or arguments instead of a factual account that could support a legal claim. The plaintiff did not make any submissions to explain why the action should proceed after an opportunity to do so was given.

I am satisfied that the action is clearly frivolous for not having a legal basis, merit or reasonable grounds. This is not a close call. I accept that the statement of claim will inevitably fail for lacking reasonable grounds on its face.

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

Date: March 12, 2025
M.T. Doi