Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-25-00745804-0000 Date: 2025-08-25 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Re: Navado Fraser, Plaintiff -and- Curtis Smith, Defendant

Before: Robert Centa J.

Counsel: Navado Fraser, self-represented plaintiff Eli Fellman, for the defendant

Heard: August 25, 2025 (in writing)

Endorsement

[1] The registrar's office referred this motion 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 from lawyers for the defendant, under rule 2.1.01(6).

[2] On August 7, 2025, I directed the registrar to give notice to Mr. Fraser that the court was considering making an order dismissing his action under rule 2.1.01. The registrar invited Mr. Fraser to make written submissions explaining why the action should not be dismissed. Mr. Fraser did not file any submissions within the deadline set by the registrar.

[3] I dismiss the action 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), 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.

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

[6] A vexatious proceeding is one taken to annoy or embarrass the opposite party or is conducted in a vexatious manner.

[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.

The Action is Frivolous

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

[9] First, Mr. Fraser brings this action in his own name, which he embroiders with the phrase "in propria persona, sui juris, in his living capacity." This is a significant red flag warning that what follows will be a non-sensical, pseudo-legal, frivolous claim that will inevitably fail.

[10] Second, Mr. Fraser brings this action against the defendant Curtis Smith, who is described as an adjudicator at the Landlord Tenant Tribunal and issued a decision in a file involving Mr. Fraser. In his statement of claim, Mr. Fraser alleges that the decision is "void, unlawful, and grounded in misapplied, colonial jurisprudence." Mr. Smith is protected by the principles of adjudicative immunity and any civil suit against him for exercising his adjudicative functions is doomed to fail: Rebstock v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2023 ONSC 1844, at para. 9. To the extent that the claim appears to relate to whether Mr. Curtis and/or the Landlord Tenant Board violated procedural fairness, erred in law, failed to address a notice of constitutional question, or acted without jurisdiction, those issues should be raised on an appeal of the decision to the Divisional Court, not in a free-standing action against the decision maker.

[11] Although it is conceivable that Mr. Fraser could have persuaded me that the action was not frivolous in his written submissions, he chose not to file any.

[12] I am satisfied that the action is frivolous, and I dismiss it without costs.

Robert Centa J.

Date: August 25, 2025

Footnotes

[1] Brajak v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2025 ONSC 3718.

[2] Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100; Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733.

[3] 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.

[4] 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, 268 O.A.C. 153, at para. 19.

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

[6] Gill, at para. 3; Lavallee, at para. 19; Pickard, at para. 19; and Henderson v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 89, 345 O.A.C. 231, at para. 20.

[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.