Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CV-23-00001801-0000
Date: 2025-06-05

Between

Sabina Parimoo, Sabina Parimoo Medicine Professional Corporation c/o/b as Cherrycrest Medical Centre and Tariq Kantroo
Plaintiff / Moving Party

and

Abu Ubaida Amin, Ayesha Amin, 1245532-3 Canada Inc. provincially registered as 3273859 Ontario Inc. c/o/b as King Vape’s Incorporated, 786 Ummah Investments Corp. c/o/b as Stop N Go Convenience
Defendant / Respondent

Appearances:
Peter Leigh, for the Plaintiff / Moving Party
Self-Represented Defendant / Responding Party

Heard: In Chambers

Reasons on Vexatious Litigant Motion
Mandhane J.

Introduction

[1] The Applicant, Sabina Parimoo, is a doctor who operates her medical practice out of a professional condominium at Unit #7, 5 Cherrycrest Drive in Brampton (“the clinic”); Tariq Kantroo is her husband. The Respondent, Mr. Abu Ubaida Amin, owns and operates Stop n Go Convenience at Unit #8, which is right next door to the clinic; he also operates King Vapes in the same complex. Ayesha Amin is his wife.

[2] To say that tensions between these neighbours run high would be an understatement. Their dispute goes back to 2021 when Dr. Parimoo refused to roster Ayesha Amin as a patient in her practice. Suffice it to say, complaints were made, insults were hurled, the police were called, lawyers were retained, and the threat of litigation quickly materialized into claims before this court.

[3] In this action, Dr. Parimoo sues Mr. Amin for defamation. However, rather than proceed to a contested trial on the allegations, Dr. Parimoo now brings a motion pursuant to Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, and section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“section 140”), to declare Mr. Amin a vexatious litigant, and to bar him or his corporations from instituting or continuing any legal proceedings without leave of the court.

[4] Mr. Amin was granted leave by Regional Senior Justice (RSJ) Ria Tzimas to represent both himself and his corporations for the purposes of this motion. His responding motion materials exceeded 2500 pages. Mr. Amin opposes the relief sought by Dr. Parimoo, saying that her motion is “meritless, misleading, and an abuse of process.” He says that Dr. Parimoo is using this vexatious litigant motion to silence him; he contemplates bringing an anti-SLAPP motion against her. He asks me to “sanction” the plaintiffs and their counsel, and to award him $15,000 in full indemnity costs.

[5] RSJ Tzimas assigned me to hear the vexatious litigant motion. I had before me the motion record, responding record, and factums. I refused to consider the “reply” materials filed by various defendants in Mr. Amin’s other matters because they are not parties to the matter before me and had not sought leave to participate in this motion.

Issues

[6] To decide this motion, I must answer two questions:

a. Has Mr. Amin persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner?
b. If so, what orders should I make?
c. What costs should I order?

[7] Based on my answers to these questions, I find that Mr. Amin and his corporate entities are vexatious litigants that must be barred from continuing or initiating any proceedings in Ontario without leave of this court.

Has Mr. Amin Persistently and Without Reasonable Grounds Instituted Vexatious Proceedings or Conducted Proceedings in a Vexatious Manner?

[8] Declaring a person vexatious is an extraordinary power that must be exercised sparingly and with the greatest of care: Dobson v. Green, 2012 ONSC 4432, at para. 6. Because a finding pursuant to section 140 is so extraordinary, there is an automatic right of appeal: s. 140(2.3), Courts of Justice Act. That said, declaring a person vexatious does not take away their right to access justice. The person is still allowed to initiate and continue proceedings, so long as they can satisfy a judge that they have a prima facie case and that the proceedings are not an abuse of process: Foy v. Foy (No. 2) (1979), 26 O.R. (2d) 220 (C.A.). Section 140 strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the integrity of the civil justice system, on the one hand, and protecting the individual’s right to access justice, on the other. It does this by shifting the burden onto the vexatious litigant to establish that there is a reasonable basis for the proposed proceeding before allowing them to draw further on scarce justice-system resources: Dobson, para. 8.

[9] I may only make an order pursuant to section 140 where I am satisfied that a person has “persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings in any court or conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner”: s. 140(1), Courts of Justice Act. The inquiry is objective, and I must look at the whole history and not just whether there was once a good cause of action. The litigant’s conduct in other civil, administrative, regulatory and private criminal proceedings is relevant to determining whether they are vexatious: R. v. Jogendra, 2012 ONSC 3303, citing Bishop v. Bishop, 2011 ONCA 211. For example, bringing ancillary claims and complaints against opposing counsel has been described as “one of the most telltale badges of a vexatious litigant”: Moore v. Habib-Allah, 2022 ONSC 5290, at para. 50.

[10] According to the courts in Lang Michener et al. v. Fabian et al. (1987), 59 O.R. (2d) 353 (S.C.); Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6497, at para. 9; and Dobson, vexatious litigants are persons who:

a. Bring actions that are obviously not going to succeed, without regard to the financial resources involved;
b. Ignore adverse rulings and procedural setbacks, including costs awards;
c. Bring actions for a purpose other than asserting their legitimate rights (for example, to harass, oppress, or wear down opponents);
d. Bring multiple actions to re-litigate previously decided issues;
e. Bring actions in which the pleadings tend to be rolled forward, repeated, and supplemented into subsequent actions, often with actions brought against lawyers who have acted against them before;
f. Bring unsuccessful appeals;
g. File voluminous materials with the court;
h. File inappropriate submissions both in form (curious formatting, odd or irrelevant attachments, multiple methods of emphasis, numerous footnotes and marginal notes) and content (rambling discourse, rhetorical questions, repeated misuse of technical terms, references to self in the third person, inappropriately ingratiating statements, ultimatums, and threats); and
i. Fail to pay the costs awarded against them previously.

[11] Bearing these hallmarks in mind, I now turn to the facts before me.

Mr. Amin’s Litigation Track Record

[12] Mr. Amin is a very litigious individual who has been wholly unsuccessful in each of his disputes. Excluding his counterclaim in this matter, Mr. Amin admits that he or his corporations have commenced twenty-one other proceedings before either this court, the Small Claims Court, or Divisional Court—both in Brampton and Toronto.

[13] In addition to Dr. Parimoo and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the "CPSO"), the defendants that Mr. Amin or his corporations have sued include:

a. The corporate condominium corporation for 5 Cherrycrest Drive, and its directors;
b. Mr. Amin’s previous landlord;
c. Lawyers that have represented Mr. Amin over the years;
d. Lawyers and a law firm—McCarthy Tetrault LLP—who have represented defendants in his actions over the years;
e. An immigration consultant;
f. An insurance company;
g. Various private companies and individuals;
h. The Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”); and
i. Peel Regional Police Services Board and two individual police officers.

[14] None of Mr. Amin’s matters have proceeded to a hearing on the merits. Two cases—including this one—are ongoing before the Superior Court. Mr. Amin discontinued another two cases before this Court because of “fear of unfairness.” Mr. Amin has nine matters currently ongoing in Small Claims Court, including one against Dr. Parimoo’s counsel, Mr. Leigh. Mr. Amin claims to have settled four Toronto matters between 2016 and 2022, but says that he cannot provide further details. His three matters before Divisional Court were unsuccessful.

[15] I turn now to this litigation. After appointing himself to case manage this file, then-RSJ Ricchetti struck Mr. Amin’s counterclaim in this matter on October 13, 2023. He stated that there were “serious deficiencies with the current pleading” but granted Mr. Amin leave to file an amended statement of claim. Justice Ricchetti refused to strike Mr. Amin’s Statement of Defence, finding that Dr. Parimoo’s claim of defamation was best decided on the merits. He ordered Mr. Amin to pay Dr. Parimoo $10,000 in costs, which remain outstanding. The same day, Ricchetti J. also dismissed Mr. Amin’s motion in a companion matter in which Mr. Amin named Dr. Parimoo as a defendant (CV-1288), and awarded $18,758 in costs against him. Dr. Parimoo has initiated enforcement proceedings against Mr. Amin for recovery of those costs.

Mr. Amin’s Complaints About Counsel, Parties and Potential Witnesses

[16] Mr. Amin has filed four complaints to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the "HRTO") against Dr. Parimoo and some of the defendants in his various civil actions. His allegations that Dr. Parimoo discriminated against him and his wife were dismissed by the Tribunal.

[17] Mr. Amin has complained about counsel, parties, and potential witnesses in this action and others to the LSO; the CPSO and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”); the College of Nurses of Ontario; and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director. All of his complaints were dismissed.

[18] After HPARB dismissed Mr. Amin’s complaint, he breached its confidentiality order and publication ban by disseminating Dr. Parimoo’s sensitive financial and medical information to court staff, the Crown attorney’s office, and the Attorney General.

[19] In this proceeding, Mr. Amin counter-claimed against the CPSO before later consenting to dismissing the action against them. While then-RSJ Ricchetti was case managing the file, Mr. Amin wrote to his assistant threatening to complain to the Canadian Judicial Council about RSJ Ricchetti after he ruled against him on an interim motion.

Mr. Amin’s Communications with Counsel

[20] Mr. Amin has sent Mr. Leigh over 350 emails between May and October 2023, and 134 emails in January 2025 alone. In the emails, Mr. Amin used foul, derogatory, and dehumanizing language in relation to Dr. Parimoo and Mr. Leigh. At times, Mr. Amin would attach unissued statements of claim as a financial threat, referring to one as the “URGENT NUCLEAR MOTION” wherein he threatened to claim $100,000,000 against Mr. Leigh and another opposing counsel.

Mr. Amin’s Communications with the Court

[21] Mr. Amin has been regularly ordered by RSJs of this court to refrain from inappropriate communications with both counsel and court staff. Between August and October 2023, Mr. Amin sent RSJ Ricchetti’s judicial assistant at least twenty-five emails, copying various parties including the LSO. In his endorsement dated September 13, 2023, then-RSJ Ricchetti, noted that:

There is clearly an issue regarding allegedly excessive and uncivil communications between the parties and counsel in this matter (in addition to the numerous communications with this court). Some allegedly go beyond uncivil and may be defamatory and harassing. I order that all future communications between the parties and/or counsel must and shall be civil, respectful and professional and only relate to the strict procedural matters with respect to this case. This is an order and any party breaching this order may be subject to contempt proceedings.

[22] Despite this order, Mr. Amin continued to send emails to the court. On September 14, 2023, RSJ Ricchetti wrote the parties directly, stating: "Mr. Amin must cease writing to the court with communications regarding what he wants or may want to do with his cases. His communications in this regard will go without response." Less than three hours later, Mr. Amin sent another email to the court. Throughout the fall of 2023, Mr. Amin sent emails to the court that became increasingly incomprehensible and inappropriate, for example, stating, “I love Justice Ricchetti so much, I have no fear now…” and calling on him to disbar Mr. Leigh.

[23] In or around December 2024, Mr. Leigh asked for a case management meeting. Between January 13 and 29, 2025, Mr. Amin sent at least 33 emails to the attention of RSJ Tzimas and copying various parties. Some of the emails were in Spanish. In his communications with the court and Mr. Leigh on January 28, 2025, Mr. Amin described Mr. Leigh as a “low life” who had less respect than “even dogs and cockroaches,” blamed him for his wife’s two miscarriages, and called on the RSJ to disbar him.

[24] In her endorsement dated January 29, 2025, RSJ Tzimas noted that “Mr. Amin has sent numerous emails and communications to the court staff intended for the judge’s attention. He is expressly asked to refrain from all such communications.” She ordered that “there are to be no communications by any means between the parties,” and reminded the parties not to communicate directly or indirectly with any judge. Two days later, on January 31, 2025, RSJ Tzimas released a second endorsement noting that “Mr. Amin has sent multiple communications expressing concerns with the contents of the [January 29] endorsement,” and stating:

[7] Finally, I am very concerned by Mr. Amin's persistent emails to the court following the issuing of yesterday's endorsement. This is consistent with his pattern of flooding the court with email communications. The behaviour is highly disruptive to the operation of the court.

[8] More significantly, his actions are contrary to paragraph 7(f) of yesterday's endorsement, which expressly prohibited the parties from ANY further communications with the court, other than the filing of their respective motion materials. Mr. Amin's continued defiance of this court order may result in prejudice and sanctions. [Emphasis added]

[25] On March 12, 2025, acting-RSJ Shaw again reminded Mr. Amin not to communicate with the court and warned him that, “If this continues, the next step will be to determine the appropriate sanctions for not complying with a court order.” On March 19, 2025, after granting Mr. Amin a second extension to file his responding materials on this motion, RSJ Tzimas again reminded him not to communicate with the court, stating that: “If Mr. Amin continues to write to court staff as he has been doing, in defiance of the court's previous endorsements to refrain from such communications, he will lose his right to file any more responding materials, on any of his matters before the court.”

[26] In his materials before this court, Mr. Amin writes, “Mr. Amin wishes to deeply apologize for an email sent to the court not filing related, Mr. Amin promises Justice Tzimas no emails will ever sent to court unless filing related.”

Conclusion: Mr. Amin Has Persistently and Without Reasonable Grounds Instituted Vexatious Proceedings or Conducted Proceedings in a Vexatious Manner

[27] Taking a wholistic view of Mr. Amin’s litigation history, nearly all of the factors identified in Lang Michener and the subsequent cases are present in the litigation that Mr. Amin has commenced since at least 2019. Mr. Amin is:

a. An individual who puts an inordinate burden on the civil justice system, but who has never brought a matter to trial let alone been successful;
b. An individual who is impervious to the financial implications of his litigation because he represents himself in court, and refuses to pay the costs awarded against him;
c. An individual who initiates multiple proceedings against various defendants, including opposing lawyers and law firms who stand in his way;
d. An individual who instinctively accuses justice system participants of wrongdoing or bias, including when appealing or reviewing their decisions;
e. An individual who sends correspondence that includes inappropriate and inflammatory comments about justice system participants; and
f. An individual who refuses to abide by court orders as it relates to his communications with both counsel, court staff, and the judiciary, and in relation to costs.

[28] An individual with Mr. Amin’s track record before the courts is, by definition, a vexatious litigant. This case is a good example. Solely because of Mr. Amin’s conduct, a discrete dispute over Dr. Parimoo’s decision not to roster his wife as a patient has ballooned into multiple claims and complaints against the doctor, her staff, her husband, her lawyer, the condominium corporation, and various professional regulatory bodies. Mr. Amin has filed claims before this court, the Small Claims Court, and the Divisional Court. He has complained to the LSO, CPSO, HPARB, and HRTO. None of his claims have been successful. Mr. Amin’s dismal record speaks to a litigant who is engaged in nuisance litigation without any regard to the cost. Mr. Amin’s disproportionate use of the civil justice system is a barrier to access to justice for parties who have legitimate claims.

What Orders Should I Make?

[29] I agree with the moving party that Mr. Amin’s ongoing litigation is problematic and calls out for the court’s immediate intervention. Even while this matter was under consideration, Mr. Amin continued to bombard court staff with multiple emails.

[30] The following orders are to go without the need for Mr. Amin’s approval as to their form and content.

[31] Mr. Amin, or any corporations he controls, are prohibited from instituting or continuing any proceeding in any court in the Province of Ontario, except and until such time as leave is granted by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, pursuant to s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, and such Order is filed with the court.

[32] Paragraph 31 applies to all matters, save and except that Mr. Amin does not require leave of this court to appeal my order declaring him vexatious pursuant to subsection 140(2.3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

[33] All proceedings previously instituted by Mr. Amin, or any corporation he controls, in any court in the Province of Ontario, which are not yet finally disposed of, are hereby stayed except and until such time as leave is granted by a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice pursuant to s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

[34] Mr. Amin, or any corporation he controls, shall deliver my reasons for decision and accompanying order to any person or body against whom they institute or continue any proceeding in any court, administrative body and/or tribunal, regulatory body, the police, and the Crown.

[35] Any proceeding instituted by Mr. Amin, or any corporation he controls, without leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice and in violation of this order shall be a nullity ab initio.

[36] Mr. Amin’s application for leave to institute or continue a proceeding shall be ex parte, in writing, and sent by registered mail to the Regional Senior Justice of the region in which leave is being sought, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit that outlines the merits of the proposed proceeding or step, and a copy of this Order. The application and affidavit shall not exceed 10 pages in length. The application for leave shall be determined by the RSJ or their designate, who will: (i) give directions as to the service of the application, which shall include service on the Attorney General of Ontario, and the procedure for determining the application; or (ii) dismiss the application.

[37] Any service on the Attorney General of Ontario shall only be by means of registered mail c/o Legal Director of the Crown Law Office-Civil, 720 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9.

[38] A copy of this Order shall be delivered forthwith to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, every region of the Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, and Small Claims Court.

[39] All remaining court orders regarding non-communication remain in full force and effect.

What Costs Should I Order?

[40] I have a broad discretion when it comes to awarding costs: Courts of Justice Act, s. 131(1). I must consider the factors set out in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules, including but not limited to: offers to settle, the complexity and importance of the matter, the conduct of any party during the litigation, the principle of indemnity, and the amount that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay.

[41] Dr. Parimoo was wholly successful and is entitled to costs of $15,000, all inclusive. The matter was factually complex, important to both parties, and the quantum is the same as what Mr. Amin sought had he been successful. The defendants are jointly and severally liable for the costs awarded.

Mandhane J.
Released: June 5, 2025