Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-25-00747714-0000 Date: 2025-10-27 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Re: Christopher Elliott, Applicant -and- Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Respondent

Before: L. Brownstone J.

Counsel: Self-represented Applicant Brandon Fragomeni, for the Respondent

Heard: October 27, 2025

Endorsement

[1] On September 29, 2025, I directed the registrar to give notice to the applicant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under r. 2.1.01(2). The registrar provided that notice on October 1, 2025, and invited written submissions from the applicant as to why the proceeding should not be dismissed.

[2] The applicant provided no submissions in response. I have determined, for the following reasons, that the application should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

[3] Rule 2.1.01(1) provides as follows:

The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[4] This rule is not to be used for "close calls". It has been repeatedly described as a blunt instrument. The frivolous, vexatious, or abusive nature of the proceeding should be apparent on the face of the proceeding: Tewari v. Sekhorn, 2024 ONCA at para. 5. The court's focus is on the pleadings and submissions: Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 at para. 11.

[5] The rule also does not replace the other rules under which proceedings may be struck out or procedural irregularities may be dealt with in a summary way. There are other available remedies that exist when problems with a case are not apparent on the face of the pleading: Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320 at paras. 7, 15.

[6] However, this does not mean that the rule should not be robustly applied. Permitting frivolous claims to proceed wastes the adverse parties' time and costs, that may never be recoverable. Importantly, failure to contain frivolous proceedings also uses court resources that must be kept available for claims that are not frivolous or vexatious: Bradley Court Limited v. Tinkasimire, 2024 ONSC 2367; Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100.

[7] A claim is frivolous or vexatious if it lacks a legal basis or legal merit or has been commenced without reasonable grounds. One indication of a frivolous claim is that it can be difficult to discern a cause of action: Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692 at para. 11.

[8] It is important to recognize that self-represented parties are not held to the drafting standards of the profession. The court must review the claim and supporting submissions, if any, to determine the crux of the complaint and whether it could, read generously, support a cause of action.

[9] The application before the court sets out a narrative of events whose connection with each other is not clear. It describes that the applicant was charged with several criminal offences. He experienced difficulty obtaining health records from a hospital. He may have had proceedings taken against him regarding some real property. He complains he was "placed in a false light."

[10] The applicant seeks a "non-punitive" award that "will allow [him] to move forward in a productive direction." The applicant goes on to explain some intellectual property he wishes to patent that will assist the development of clean energy production. He describes his intention to provide the majority of the profits from this endeavour to the province.

[11] The applicant concludes by stating:

This civil case is best described as a private injury that resulted in a series of events that placed me in a false light causing privacy invasion, multiple wrongful criminal charges, unnecessary imprisonment and surrendering my freehold without contest. I am asking for a non punitive tort award of 150,000,000 dollars.

[12] The applicant includes correspondence from his criminal law counsel as part of his application. He refers to the correspondence to support his application.

[13] In that correspondence, counsel reports to the applicant that the applicant had been charged with a series of offences including theft of a motor vehicle, possession of stolen property, and several offences of failing to appear. The letter indicates that the charges were withdrawn as a result of the applicant's successful completion of the Durham mental health program.

[14] I conclude that the application, on its face, is frivolous and vexatious in that it lacks a legal basis and is doomed to fail. The application does not allege malicious prosecution. There is no suggestion that the police conduct in charging the applicant with criminal offences was characterized by malice or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect. The application makes clear that charges were withdrawn after the applicant successfully completed the mental health program. There is no suggestion that there was no basis for the charges to be laid. These required elements of malicious prosecution are not alleged in the narrative: Miazga v. Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 339, at paras. 53-56.

[15] Nor can I find any other legal basis for the proceeding.

[16] The errors are not mere drafting errors that could be corrected. Close to half of the application details the applicant's wish to pursue his interests in clean energy and law enforcement, allowing him to "do meaningful, productive work that will advance public safety and interest."

[17] These are laudable goals. However, the notice of application reveals no basis upon which the respondent could have legal responsibility to furnish the applicant with the means of pursuing these goals.

[18] I therefore order the application to be dismissed.

L. Brownstone J.

Date: October 27, 2025