CITATION: Wilson v. Ottawa Police Service et al., 2026 ONSC 2410
COURT FILE NO.: CV-26-102709
DATE: 2026/04/29
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Allan Douglas Wilson, Plaintiff
-and-
Ottawa Police Service Board, Anne Tardif, and Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Defendants
BEFORE: Justice Roger
COUNSEL: Self-Represented, for the Plaintiff
Anne Tardif, for the Ottawa Police Service Board
Andrew McKenna, for Ms. Tardif and Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
HEARD: In writing
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The defendants Ms. Tardif and Gowling made a request under rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, on February 17, 2026. I reviewed their request and found sufficient merit to engage the process of that rule. My endorsement and a notice that this proceeding may be stayed or dismissed under rule 2.1, both dated April 9, 2026, were sent to the parties. The plaintiff delivered written submissions; none were delivered by the defendants.
[2] The plaintiff brings this action alleging the defendants made false accusations against him in their legal submissions entitled “Response of the Ottawa Police Service Board to the Applicant’s Rule 2.1.01 Submissions”, of November 5, 2025, filed in the Divisional Court proceeding DC-25-2976. He alleges that the false accusations were adopted by Justice Labrosse in his endorsement dismissing the plaintiff’s Divisional Court application for judicial review and that the false accusations constitute defamation. The plaintiff alleges that the false accusations were made with malice to injure his reputation and that absolute privilege, qualified privilege, and fair comment are not applicable. He alleges as well that the defendants’ conduct was in breach of their duties, was a civil conspiracy to injure, and may constitute the criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Relying upon those allegations, he seeks damages.
[3] The plaintiff’s statement of claim is, on its face, frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of this court. It exhibits many of the hallmarks often associated with vexatious actions. Also, it lacks merit and is one of those “clearest of cases” where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on its face: see Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 343 O.A.C. 87, at para. 8, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 488. This action is therefore dismissed.
[4] Rule 2.1 provides a streamlined procedure for disposing of proceedings that are, on their face, frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process: see Simpson v. The Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 806, at para. 43.
[5] The application of this rule is limited to the clearest of cases “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 attenuated process”: see Scaduto, at para. 8.
[6] “Frivolous” may be defined as “[l]acking a legal basis or legal merit; not serious; not reasonably purposeful”: see Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497, at para. 9, citing Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board (2003), 2003 7815 (ON CA), 233 D.L.R. (4th) 657. Moreover, to determine whether an action is “vexatious, frivolous, or an abuse of the court” under rule 2.1.01, the court may consider the criteria developed under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. The court may consider the characteristics typically shared by such actions: see Gao, at para. 15.
[7] The statement of claim in this action is a good example of the above. For example, the statement of claim now targets the lawyers of the Ottawa Police Service Board (“OPSB”), a party previously sued by the plaintiff in an action that has since been dismissed under rule 2.1.01 as vexatious.
[8] Also, the statement of claim targets the OPSB’s lawyers for the written submissions, made on behalf of their client, that the plaintiff’s earlier proceeding was vexatious. As such, this action continues legal proceedings against the OPSB even though both the earlier action against the OPSB and the application for judicial review of that decision were dismissed under rule 2.1.01. Although I appreciate from the plaintiff’s written submissions that both these decisions are apparently under appeal, this action is, nonetheless, a repetitive and related action against the OPSB, contrary to what the plaintiff alleges in his submissions. Suing the lawyers of some of the participants and starting repetitive legal proceedings against a party or against its lawyers despite earlier dismissals are hallmarks typically associated with vexatious or frivolous proceedings.
[9] Moreover, the plaintiff repeats allegations made in earlier proceedings that false and defamatory statements were made by the lawyer of a party, despite these statements being protected by privilege. Here, the alleged statements were made within the context of a legal proceeding. As such, these statements are privileged, and no action lies against the party or its lawyers for such statements: see Samuel Manu-Tech Inc. v. Redipac Recycling Corp. et al. (1999), 1999 3776 (ON CA), 124 O.A.C. 125, at para. 19. The lawyers for the OPSB owed none of the alleged duties to the plaintiff, and the other claims are, on the face of the pleading, also without merit.
[10] I appreciate from the plaintiff’s submissions that he is unhappy with rule 2.1, which he describes as a “procedural mechanism without engagement on the merits”. However, rule 2.1 addresses this fairly as it is only applicable to the clearest of cases, those for which more process is not required to fairly deal with their merits. Such an application of rule 2.1 is consistent with the general principle of the Rules of Civil Procedure “to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits” and to do so having regard to proportionality.
[11] The plaintiff’s action is, on its face, without merit and abusive of the process of this court. It is therefore fair that it be dismissed summarily.
Justice Roger
Date: April 29, 2026
CITATION: Wilson v. Ottawa Police Service et al., 2026 ONSC 2410
COURT FILE NO.: CV-26-102709
DATE: 2026/04/29
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Allan Douglas Wilson, Plaintiff
-and-
Ottawa Police Service Board, Anne Tardif, and Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Defendants
COUNSEL: Self-Represented, for the Plaintiff
Anne Tardif, for the Ottawa Police Service Board
Andrew McKenna, for Ms. Tardif and Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
REASONS FOR DECISION
Roger J.
Released: April 29, 2026