Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-25-00739667-0000
Date: 2025-05-21
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
The Estate of Brajak James, Plaintiff
-and-
Attorney General of Ontario, Defendant

Before: Robert Centa
Counsel:

• Lord Brajak-Madray, for the plaintiff
• No one appearing for the defendant

Heard: May 21, 2025

Endorsement

Background

[1] This matter came before me on May 2, 2025, as a written request to schedule a short motion or application before a judge.

[2] The plaintiff had made three prior requests to schedule a very similar motion. On April 22, 2025, Koehnen J. declined to schedule the plaintiff’s motion because the requisition form did not set out an understandable justiciable issue. Justice Koehnen issued the following endorsement:

I decline to order any sort of hearing or case conference at this time.
This matter was dealt with by me in an earlier requisition endorsement dated March 28, 2025. At that time I endorsed the requisition form as follows:
“The requisition form does not contain an understandable judiciable issue. Whatever hearing the applicant objects to should proceed. If the applicant wishes to seek judicial review or an appeal from that hearing, he is free to do so. At that point, the Court will have a record on which to base a decision.”
The new requisition form still does not articulate a judiciable issue. The applicant should summarize the nature of the complaint stating: specifically what he is complaining about and what relief he seeks. Any new requisition should be directed to my attention given my history with the matter. Once I understand what the applicant’s specific complaint is and what he is seeking, I can determine whether and how to proceed.

[3] On May 1, 2025, Schabas J. reviewed a revised requisition form. Justice Schabas also declined to schedule the motion and issued the following endorsement:

The description above is unintelligible and unwieldy. The Plaintiff will have to provide a clear and concise description of what it seeks by way of relief in a motion in order for the Court to consider the matter.

[4] When I reviewed the plaintiff’s fourth requisition form, I was concerned that the proceeding might be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the court’s process. I directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff that the court was considering making an order dismissing the action under rule 2.1.01. [1] The registrar notified the plaintiff and invited him to make written submissions explaining why the action should not be dismissed.

[5] The plaintiff did not provide any written submissions. While the plaintiff could have persuaded me that the action was not frivolous, he did not do so. I dismiss the action as frivolous.

Rule 2.1

[6] 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), 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. [2]

[7] The Court of Appeal approved of this approach. [3]

[8] A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been brought without reasonable grounds. [4] A frivolous proceeding is one that is readily recognizable as devoid of merit, as one having little prospect of success. [5] A frivolous application is one that will necessarily or inevitably fail. [6]

[9] 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. [7]

The Action is Frivolous

[10] I conclude the action is frivolous because it will inevitably fail.

[11] First, as noted by Koehnen J., the requisition form does not set out a justiciable claim. The plaintiff seeks the following relief:

1. Canada Act, 1982 s. 52(1) Declaration declaring Ontario’s Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17 of no force or effect against the Estate of BRAJAK-JAMES, the BRAJAK, JAMES Birth Certificate person derived from the Estate and the James Brajak Social Insurance Number person derived from the Birth Certificate (Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 13, [2002] 1 S.C.R 405, Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, 2024 SCC 26)
2. Canada Act, 1982 s. 24 Special damages (compensation) of $2 (CAD) per second for all time Tribunals Ontario has used the name James Brajak in their Application process, from August 5, A.D. 2024 to present, settled with gold and silver minted 99% fine of equivalent value
3. Canada Act, 1982 s. 24 Declaration declaring the moving party (Lord Brajak-Madray) the rightful heir, equitable owner and beneficiary to the Estate of BRAJAK-JAMES according to the supremacy of God and s. 26 of the same Act
4. Canada Act, 1982 s. 24 Declaration declaring the Estate of BRAJAK-JAMES a constructive trust, binding it upon the conscience of the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario as trustee thereof in Perpetuity of the King (Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, 2011 SCC 24, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 SCC 71)

[12] While the Superior Court of Justice has the jurisdiction to make declarations of constitutional invalidity, and to award damages, no justiciable claim is described in the third version of the requisition.

[13] Second, the plaintiff advances a number of peculiar claims that have no legal basis. For example, the plaintiff submits that:

15. Tribunals Ontario agents have been furnished with no evidence to obtain positive I.D. that James Brajak spoke/did leasing with their Applicant and, or to possess Executive/Administrative Authority/Jurisdiction to Issue an Application using the social contract entity name James Brajak as a Respondent-Tenant Party in their commercial activity, and presuming it occupying Their 206 Langley Avenue – Basement, despite the moving party notifying them not to do so, not to use it and to cease and desist.
16. Under no Act of Parliament or of the Legislature for Ontario are Tribunals Ontario agents authorized to determine the capacities in which men and women act and, or exist.
17. Under no Act of Parliament or of the Legislature for Ontario is jurisdiction conferred on Tribunals Ontario agents to determine who a man or woman is.
18. Tribunals Ontario possesses no evidence to purport that the moving party, and possessor of the man-made cave (that They call 206 Langley Avenue - Basement,) consents to be identified as the social contract entity name James Brajak or is that person.

[14] These submissions are nonsensical and are typical of a frivolous claim.

[15] Third, the submissions quote extensively from what appears to be verses from religious texts. The verses appear to have nothing to do with the other parts of the requisition form and, in any event, do not support a claim for relief in this court.

[16] Fourth, the plaintiff did not take the opportunity that I provided to him to provide written submissions to show me that his claim was not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. While he could have persuaded me that this action was not frivolous, he did not do so.

[17] Finally, the plaintiff has failed four times to articulate a justiciable issue. I see no reason to provide the plaintiff with another chance. I dismiss the action pursuant to rule 2.1.01(1), without costs.

Robert Centa
Date: May 21, 2025

Footnotes

[1] Rahman v. Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 924.

[2] Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100.

[3] Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.

[4] 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.

[5] 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.

[6] R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11, at para. 67.

[7] 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.