Ali v. Riewald, 2026 ONSC 2429

CITATION: Ali v. Riewald, 2026 ONSC 2429

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00005196-0000

DATE: 2026 04 24

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Shaukat Ali, Plaintiff

AND:

James Riewald (WLG), Defendant

BEFORE: Coats J.

COUNSEL: Shaukat Ali, Self-Represented

Amanda McInnis, for the Defendant

HEARD: In writing – April 20, 2026

ENDORSEMENT

Background:

1The defendant, James Riewald (WLG), served and filed a Request for Stay or Dismissal under Rule 2.1, dated February 27, 2026.

2By my endorsement of March 13, 2026, I directed the Registrar to give notice to the parties on Form 2.1B that the proceeding may be stayed or dismissed. The notice was emailed to the plaintiff and to the defendant’s counsel on March 19, 2026. The plaintiff had 15 days to file a written submission with the court. The plaintiff has not done so.

Law:

3The principles to apply on a Rule 2.1.01(1) determination are set out in Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2020 ONCA 690, leave to appeal refused, 2021 22785 (SCC), at para. 8:

8The following principles govern the application of r. 2.1:

1. Rule 2.1 must be “interpreted and applied robustly so that a motion judge can effectively exercise his or her gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process”: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at para. 8, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 488. The Rule is not for close calls — it may be used only in “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”: Scaduto, at paras. 8-9; Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320 (“Khan”), at para. 6, leave to appeal to S.C.C. requested, 39321.

2. A motion under r. 2.1 focuses on the pleadings and any submissions of the parties made under the rule. No evidence is submitted on a r. 2.1 motion: Scaduto, at paras. 9, 11-12. A court may, however, review reasons and pleadings from other proceedings to determine whether the case is abusive: Khan, at para. 9.

3. Rule 2.1 does not replace other rules in the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike out actions or to deal with other procedural irregularities summarily: Khan, at para. 7. The rule is “not meant to be an easily accessible alternative to a pleadings motion, a motion for summary judgment, or a trial”: Khan v. Krylov & Company LLP, 2017 ONCA 625, 138 O.R. (3d) 581, at para. 12; P.Y. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2020 ONCA 98, at para. 11. The Rules provide many other remedies to address cases that are not clear on the face of the pleading: Khan, at para. 15.

4. The case law under r. 2.1 will continue to develop as the rule is used more widely: Scaduto, at para. 9.

5. A motion judge’s ruling under r. 2.1 is a discretionary decision entitled to appellate deference. Such a decision may be set aside only if the motion judge misdirected themselves or their decision was so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice: Khan, at para. 10; Penner v. Niagara Regional Police Services Board, 2013 SCC 19, [2013] S.C.R. 125, at para. 27.

4The rationale for the Rule 2.1.01(1) process is set out at paras. 6 and 8 of Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6100, 37 C.L.R. (4th) 1:

6Rule 2.1 is a statutory response to a significant and longstanding problem. Vexatious proceedings can cause very substantial costs to be incurred by responding parties. They also cause inefficient and inappropriate utilization of court resources. Knights Village Non-Profit Homes Inc. v. Chartier, 2006 O.J. No. 4433 at para. 16.

8Rule 2.1 provides a summary process for a hearing in writing to determine if a proceeding ought to be dismissed where it has been identified by opposing parties or by the court as possibly falling into the categories of frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The hearing process is quite quick and limited. This prevents the hearing of the motion from itself becoming a vehicle for a party who might be inclined to inflict the harms of frivolous proceedings on the opposing parties and the civil justice system. Subrule 2.1.01(3) provides the following process for the hearing of a motion under rule 2.1:

(3) Unless the court orders otherwise, an order under subrule (1) shall be made on the basis of written submissions, if any, in accordance with the following procedures:

1. The court shall direct the registrar to give notice (Form 2.1A) to the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, that the court is considering making the order.

2. The plaintiff or applicant may, within 15 days after receiving the notice, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the notice.

3. If the plaintiff or applicant does not file a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may make the order without any further notice to the plaintiff or applicant or to any other party.

4. If the plaintiff or applicant files a written submission that complies with paragraph 2, the court may direct the registrar to give a copy of the submission to any other party.

5. A party who receives a copy of the plaintiff’s or applicant’s submission may, within 10 days after receiving the copy, file with the court a written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the plaintiff’s or applicant’s submission, and shall give a copy of the responding submission to the plaintiff or applicant and, on the request of any other party, to that party.

Analysis:

5The Statement of Claim is frivolous, vexatious, and otherwise an abuse of process.

6The entire body of the Statement of Claim states as follows:

CLAIM

HARASSMENT, RACISM, HATE CRIME, DEFAMATORY LIBEL, LACK OF DUTIES / RESPONSIBILITIES, MISLEADING COURT, NON-HUMAN / PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES, CLAIM C$ 10 M

(SHAUKAT ALI, 3175 BUNKERHILL

PLACE, BURLINGTON, ON,L7M 0C4. CELL PHONE #647 994 8251)

7Rule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies…”. The Statement of Claim contains no statement of material facts. Rule 25.06(9) provides that “Where a pleading contains a claim for relief, the nature of the relief claimed shall be specified…”.This statement of claim contains no specifics or details of the relief claimed, only a series of terms and a dollar amount.

Conclusion:

8The Statement of Claim issued December 11, 2025 is dismissed.

Coats J.