Endorsement

Court File No.: CV-25-00744233-0000
Date: 2025-07-04
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Re: James Brajak, Applicant
– and –
Attorney General of Ontario, Respondent

Before: Robert Centa

Counsel:
James Brajak, self-represented applicant
Mihaela Ion, for the respondent

Heard: July 4, 2025 (in writing)

Introduction

[1] The registrar’s office referred this application to me pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request under rule 2.1.01(6) from the lawyers for the respondent, the Attorney General of Ontario.

[2] On June 23, 2025, I directed the registrar to give notice to Mr. Brajak that the court was considering making an order dismissing his application under rule 2.1.01. Brajak v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2025 ONSC 3718. The registrar invited Mr. Brajak to make written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed. Mr. Brajak provided certain documents in response to this invitation, which he stated he “made under duress [and] in absence of consent.” I have nevertheless reviewed his submissions.

[3] I dismiss the application because I find it to be frivolous.

Rule 2.1

[4] 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), 2014 ONSC 6100, 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. Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.

[5] A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been brought without reasonable grounds. 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. A frivolous proceeding is one that is readily recognizable as devoid of merit, as one having little prospect of success. 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 application is one that will necessarily or inevitably fail. R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11, at para. 67.

[6] A vexatious application is one taken to annoy or embarrass the opposite party or is conducted in a vexatious manner. Gill, at para. 3; Lavallee, at para. 19; Pickard, at para. 19; and Henderson v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 89, at para. 20.

[7] 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. 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.

The Application is Frivolous

[8] I am satisfied the application lacks both a legal basis and legal merit. Mr. Brajak has brought this application without reasonable grounds, and it is devoid of merit. This application will inevitably fail.

[9] Mr. Brajak styles his application as an application for declaratory relief and “the equitable recognition of private beneficial ownership of the Estate/Trust of BRAJAK-JAMES.” He seeks the following relief:

a. A declaration pursuant that “the Applicant is not the legal owner, trustee or surety of the Estate/Trust of BRAJAK-JAMES or any derivatives/ extracts thereof and is not liable for any legal obligations, debts or duties associated/ connected therewith.” and

b. a declaration that “the Applicant a free private ecclesiastical person.”

[10] Mr. Brajak’s application is frivolous because it does not set out a justiciable claim. The Superior Court of Justice does not have the jurisdiction to declare Mr. Brajak a “free private ecclesiastical person.”

[11] Second, Mr. Brajak advances a number of peculiar grounds for relief that have no legal basis. Mr. Brajak lists many grounds in support of the relief he seeks, including the Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.19, various of Canada’s constitutional documents, among the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. None of the grounds asserted by Mr. Brajak make any sense. To provide only one example, Mr. Brajak asserts the following grounds for his application:

4. Heretofore, there has been, and still is, great controversy between the Applicant and the Respondent as to who the beneficiary is of the Estate/Trust and who the trustee is thereof, and the Applicant is falsely identified and treated as if he is the trustee of and, or surety for the Estate/Trust when he is not; and it is not lawful or fair to the Applicant, who was entered into a legal relationship with the Crown when he could not consent or decline, that he should be subject to such error in law or treated as a member of the public of Canada, against the Applicant's belief and conscience towards YHWH (God) that he is saved by and under grace through faith and baptism in Yashwa Mashchaa (Jesus Christ,) and when he never put his hand to the deed done, or Created the legal relationship, and therefore cannot be the legal owner or trustee thereof, or the surety there for; which would be for him to commit fraud if he did.

[12] These submissions are nonsensical and are typical of a frivolous proceeding.

[13] Third, Mr. Brajak also relies on a variety of passages from religious texts. These passages do not support a claim for relief in this court.

[14] Fourth, in response to my invitation to Mr. Brajak to submit written submissions in response to the notice that the court was considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court’s process, Mr. Brajak submitted a “status correction.” The document is signed “Lord Brajak-Madray, Private Person formerly known as James Brajak.” It reads as follows:

An unrebutted Declaration point by point stands as Truth
Statutory Declaration
Of
Beneficial Owner
And
Restoration of Status from Public Person "James Brajak" to Private Person (Non-Entity)
I, the declarant and author of this declaration, solemnly declare that on account of the vital statistics rendered unto the Crown and registered in the manner prescribed under s. 9(2) of Ontario's Vital Statistics Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. V.4, which vital statistics belong to me, and the estate Created therefrom and the trust conveyed thereby pursuant to s. 1 and s. 10 of Ontario's Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.19, I am the private beneficial owner and beneficiary to the Estate/Trust of BRAJAK-JAMES;
and that I, heretofore identified erroneously as the public commercial entity James Brajak, causing rise for correction of mistake and controversy in my person's status by this declaration, am not that entity and am privately named, present, and the Estate/Trust and all persons and proceeds derived therefrom are henceforth restored to be assets beneficially owned and controlled by me in my private de jure capacity in equity;
including but not limited to, the s. 43 Ontario Vital Statistics Act BRAJAK, JAMES person, and the s. 2 Canada Social Insurance Number Regulations, SOR/2013-82 James Brajak person, and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force or effect as if made under oath.

[15] This document makes no sense. Far from persuading me that the application should be allowed to proceed, Mr. Brajak’s submission is further evidence that the application is frivolous and that there would be no benefit in allowing it to continue.

[16] I have no doubt that, if I allowed it to continue, this application would ultimately fail and that, in the meantime, it would consume a vast and disproportionate amount of court time. I dismiss the application pursuant to rule 2.1.01(1), without costs.

Robert Centa
Date: July 4, 2025