Ali v. CIBC, 2025 ONSC 963

Court and Parties

Date: 2025-02-12
Court: Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Plaintiff: Mohammed Ali
Defendants: CIBC and The Canadian Tire Bank

Before: Rohit Parghi

Counsel:

• Plaintiff: Self-represented
• Andrea Bergman, for the Defendant, CIBC
• Catherine Litinsky, for the Defendant, The Canadian Tire Bank

Heard: February 12, 2025 (In Writing)

Endorsement

[1] The Defendant Canadian Tire Bank has asked the Registrar, by letter dated January 27, 2025, to dismiss this action under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Rule 2.1 permits the court, “on its own initiative,” to “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.” The Registrar has notified the court of this request and it has been provided to me for consideration.

[2] I decline to dismiss this action.

[3] Rule 2.1 is intended to allow a judge to exercise their gatekeeping function to make a summary determination as to whether, on its face, a proceeding should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process. The rule is to apply only “where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to” the rule 2.1 process (Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, para 8). The rule is “an extremely blunt instrument” and “reserved for the clearest of cases” (Khan v. Krylov & Company LLP, 2017 ONCA 625, para 12). It is not intended to be used “for close calls” (Scaduto, at para 9, citing Raji v. Ladner, 2015 ONSC 801, paras 8-9).

[4] In considering whether to dismiss an action under rule 2.1, the pleading is to be read generously to allow for drafting deficiencies and to identify the core complaint pleaded (Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6497, para 18). The court is then to assess if there is a basis for applying the process contemplated under rule 2.1, or whether another rule is available for the same subject matter (Raji, at paras 8-9). The rule is not meant to be “an easily accessible alternative to a pleadings motion, a motion for summary judgment or a trial” (Khan, at para 12).

[5] Applying these principles here, I am of the view that this matter is not appropriately dismissed under rule 2.1.

[6] Read liberally, as the pleading must be in this motion, the core complaint in the Notice of Action is that the Defendant CIBC improperly identified certain cheques deposited into the Plaintiff’s bank account as false, and that this created various banking issues for the Plaintiff. The allegation that CIBC misclassified the Plaintiff’s deposits and that he experienced harm as a result is not clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. It is a claim that the Plaintiff should not be prevented from seeking to advance at this early stage.

[7] The Notice of Action also claims that Canadian Tire Bank refunded some money to the Plaintiff but it never reached the Plaintiff’s CIBC account. This allegation also points to potential wrongdoing on the part of Canadian Tire Bank on its own, or together with CIBC. It is not a claim that, on its face, is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. It is not a claim that he should be precluded from pursuing at this stage.

[8] In sum, nothing in the pleading suggests that the proceeding is abusive in nature or otherwise supports the application of the blunt and summary dismissal process under rule 2.1.

[9] Nor does this case bear any of the hallmarks of vexatious litigation. There is no suggestion before me that the Plaintiff is trying to relitigate an issue on which the court has already ruled, or is otherwise a vexatious litigant or otherwise engaged in an abuse of process. There is no basis for concluding that the Plaintiff will engage in improper conduct or misuse the litigation process. There is no reason to think that he is bringing this proceeding simply to harass or oppress others.

[10] Canadian Tire Bank, in its brief submissions, submits that the Notice of Action does not identify a recognized cause of action or plead any requisite material facts. It also states that the Statement of Claim has not been delivered in time.

[11] For the reasons above, I do not accept the first of these propositions. Even if I did, the appropriate response would be for Canadian Tire Bank to seek relief in the typical fashion, for instance through a pleadings motion or summary judgment motion. The jurisprudence is clear that rule 2.1 is not meant to be a shortcut to seeking such relief (Khan, at para 12).

[12] Likewise, the argument that the Statement of Claim has not been delivered in time is appropriately addressed if and when the Plaintiff brings a motion under rule 3.02 seeking an extension of time to issue and/or serve the Statement of Claim. It is not appropriate for a motion under rule 2.1.

[13] I therefore decline to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. This case does not warrant the use of the exceptional powers granted to me under rule 2.1.

Rohit Parghi
Date: February 12, 2025