Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-22-00681472-0000
Date: 2025-02-03
Court: Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Applicant: Ramlall Hemchand
Respondents: Arjun Sawhney, Dhruv Sawhney, and Attorney General of Ontario

Before: J.T. Akbarali

Counsel:

• Ramlall Hemchand, in person
• Matthew Chung, for the defendant His Majesty the King in right of Ontario, improperly named as the Attorney General of Ontario
• Arjun Sawhney and Dhruv Sawhney, in person

Heard: In writing

Endorsement

[1] Counsel for His Majesty the King in right of Ontario (“Ontario”) has requested that the court consider dismissing this application under r. 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. On January 13, 2025, I released an endorsement in this matter: Hemchand v. Sawhney et al., 2025 ONSC 241. In that endorsement, I ordered that notice be given to the applicant that the court is considering dismissing his application against Ontario under r. 2.1.01(1), and providing that the applicant may deliver written submissions of nomore than ten pages in length within 15 days. The 15-day period has expired, and no written submissions were received.

[2] To dismiss a proceeding under r. 2.1, the frivolous, vexatious, or abusive nature of the proceeding must be apparent on its face. Moreover, there should be a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, paras. 8-9.

[3] In my view, the application against Ontario is frivolous and vexatious on its face. As I described in my first endorsement, the claim relates to allegations that the applicant’s landlords, the individual respondents, breached the applicant’s privacy, breached the lease agreement between the parties, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the applicant, causing damages.

[4] The claim against Ontario, however, alleges only that (i) the applicant called Ontario (through the office of the Attorney General) to complain about the problems at the rental premises, to no avail; (ii) Ontario should have known that there was an illegal occupation of six people in the basement rental premises when the by-laws only allow three; and (iii) Ontario should have taken action against the individual respondents for sending digital images of the applicant over the internet to others in foreign countries without the knowledge, consent or benefit of the applicant.

[5] As I indicated in my original endorsement, the pleading does not identify a claim against Ontario, or any duty Ontario owed to the applicant that was breached. The prayer for relief seeks no relief against Ontario.

[6] The facts pleaded do not suggest that Ontario breached a duty it owed to the applicant.

[7] The applicant has made no effort to raise any facts that could support a duty Ontario owed to him and breached.

[8] The pleading itself is rambling, and uses inappropriate capitalizations. The nature of the pleading supports the use of an attenuated process in this case.

[9] In the circumstances, I dismiss the applicant’s application against Ontario under r. 2.1.01(1).

J.T. Akbarali
Date: February 3, 2025