Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-17-00133929-0001 Date: 2025-11-12 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Delores Grey and Zachary Hornick, Plaintiffs And: Roohi Hasan, Edwin Alexander, Jag Realtor, Dr. Pooneh Akhravi and Landlord and Tenant Board, Defendants

Before: J. Di Luca J.

Counsel:

• Delores Grey & Zachary Hornick, Self-Represented Plaintiffs
• Cale R. Sutherland, counsel for the Defendant, Dr. Pooneh Akhravi

Heard: October 29, 2025

Endorsement

[1] The defendant, Dr. Okhravi, seeks an order dismissing the action against her for delay. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted, and the action is dismissed as against Dr. Okhravi.

Overview of the Claim

[2] The claim generally relates to alleged injuries suffered by Ms. Grey in her rental apartment. Ms. Grey alleges that her landlord's failure to repair a refrigerator resulted in a flooded kitchen, which in turn caused Ms. Grey to slip and fall. Ms. Grey has included her insurance company, a realtor and the Landlord and Tenant Board as defendants. She seeks $100,000 in general damages and $500 million in punitive damages.

[3] The action was commenced on December 22, 2017, almost eight years ago. A quick perusal of the statement of claim reveals that it has many hallmarks of pleadings that are usually addressed under Rule 2.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or other motions relating to the sufficiency or viability of pleadings.

[4] In her claim, which is styled in part as a motion and includes excerpts of legal texts and internet sources, Ms. Grey states as follows at para. 33:

I'm asking the courts to set a new standard and put the fear of Canada in the hearts and minds of those who wish to abuse their power, disregard legal contracts, insult their professional oaths and cause a sense of hopelessness in me and my public.

[5] On January 17, 2021, TD Insurance – Meloche Monnex successfully obtained an order dismissing the action against it.

[6] On November 10, 2025, the court also provided notice to the plaintiffs that it was considering making an order under Rule 2.01 dismissing the action as against the Landlord and Tenant Board.

[7] It does not appear that the remaining defendants have engaged with the process, although it appears that Mr. Alexander may have filed a statement of defence.

The Claim Against Dr. Okhravi

[8] The claim against Dr. Okhravi is a medical malpractice claim brought by the plaintiffs, alleging negligence in medical care provided to Ms. Grey between January 1, 2017 and November 10, 2017.

[9] Ms. Grey alleges that she received inadequate and incompetent medical care. More specifically, Ms. Grey appears to object to the specific pain medications she was prescribed to deal with the pain she experienced as a result of the fall inside her apartment.

[10] On December 22, 2017, Ms. Grey attempted to serve Dr. Okhravi by email with an unissued copy of the statement of claim. It also appears that she may have sent the statement of claim to Dr. Okhravi by registered mail.

[11] Beginning on February 8, 2018, and on numerous occasions thereafter, counsel for Dr. Okhravi advised Ms. Grey that an issued pleading must be personally served on Dr. Okhravi. Counsel took the position that unless Dr. Okhravi was properly served in accordance with the rules, she would not respond to the action.

[12] In response to correspondence sent on March 7, 2018, Ms. Grey advised that she had done all that she was legally required to do to serve Dr. Okhravi.

[13] Ms. Grey has not responded to any further communication from counsel for Dr. Okhravi. She has also taken no steps to advance the action.

[14] Dr. Okhravi has not filed a statement of defence.

[15] On February 27, 2023, May 29, 2023, August 23, 2023, November 30, 2023, and May 23, 2024, counsel for Dr. Okhravi contacted the Registrar of the Superior Court in Newmarket to inquire about an administrative dismissal of the action. On each occasion, counsel was advised that the court was not issuing administrative dismissals at that time.

[16] Ms. Grey provided no response to this motion, although she did attend the hearing. In her submissions, Ms. Grey made it clear that, in her view, the statement of claim had been properly served by registered mail and that, as a result, the fault for the standstill in the action rests entirely with Dr. Okhravi.

[17] Ms. Grey also made submissions suggesting that the conduct of the parties in this case is related to the conduct of parties in other cases she is involved in. She views the alleged connections as indicative of coordinated conduct aimed at harming her interests.

[18] Despite her position that she has properly served Dr. Okhravi, Ms. Grey has not noted her in default.

Analysis and Findings

[19] Rule 24.01(2), which incorporates by reference Rule 48.14(1), directs that the court shall dismiss an action for delay where the action has either not been set down for trial within five years of commencement or has not been restored to the trial list within two years of being struck off the trial list, unless the plaintiffs demonstrates that dismissal of the action would be unjust.

[20] An order dismissing an action for delay under this rule is warranted where: (i) the delay is intentional or contumelious; or (ii) the delay is inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial to the defendant, in that it gives rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial of the issues will not be possible, see North Toronto Chinese Alliance Church v. Gartner Lee Limited, 2012 ONCA 251, at para. 11, Langenecker v. Sauvé, 2011 ONCA 803 and Ticchiarelli v. Ticchiarelli, 2017 ONCA 1, at para. 12. More recently, see Ever Fresh Direct Foods Inc. v. Jamia Islamia Canada Ltd., 2021 ONSC 1278, affirmed at 2022 ONCA 185.

[21] In my view, this motion can be readily determined under the second branch of the test.

[22] The delay is inordinate. The action is almost eight years old, and no steps have been taken to move it forward. Had the court been issuing administrative dismissals, this case would have been dismissed almost three years ago.

[23] The delay is inexcusable. Ms. Grey has proffered no evidence explaining the delay. In her submissions, she insists that she has properly served Dr. Okhravi despite the fact that she has not. She suggests that the delay is entirely the fault of Dr. Okhravi. She also suggests that this action is important because she has a number of other allegedly related actions awaiting the outcome of this action. None of her submissions come close to providing a basis for explaining the delay.

[24] Lastly, the delay is prejudicial to Dr. Okhravi. Prejudice can be inferred from the passage of an inordinate time. I accept that Dr. Okhravi has had this case hanging over her head for almost eight years. She is currently caught in a stalemate as Ms. Grey is adamant that she is not causing delay. The passage of time has eroded memories and will make it difficult to fairly defend the action, if it were ever to go to trial.

[25] Considered all together, I am satisfied that the action against Dr. Okhravi should be dismissed due to delay.

Costs

[26] In terms of costs, Dr. Okhravi has filed a costs outline setting out partial indemnity fees and disbursements of approximately $30,000, all inclusive, for both the action and the motion to dismiss. The breakdown is $17,555 in fees and HST in relation to the action and $11,722 in fees and HST for the motion to dismiss the action.

[27] In my view, the amount claimed in relation to the action is excessive. The defendant did not defend the action. Instead, after insisting on personal service despite actual knowledge of the claim, she adopted a passive posture and waited on the sidelines. In other words, the defendant, by her conduct, appears to have been content to let the matter rest idle rather than accept service and move on.

[28] In terms of the motion, while I accept that effort was required to prepare and present the motion to dismiss, some moderation of the amount sought is required on the basis of reasonableness and proportionality. As well, I note that less than one hour was required for the hearing.

[29] Having considered the principles that animate the ordering of costs, I order costs of $5,000, all inclusive, payable to Dr. Okhravi. This amount represents costs for both the motion and the action.

[30] Order to go accordingly.

J. Di Luca J.

Date: November 12, 2025