Court File and Parties
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Antonio Mantello, Applicant And: 1658275 Ontario Inc.; 1586164 Ontario Inc.; 2239227 Ontario Inc.; Cianci Holdings Inc.; Do All Consulting Inc.; Vincenzo Molinaro; Julie Anne Molinaro, Respondents
Before: Parghi J.
Counsel: Maurice Neirinck, for the Applicant Peter Smiley, Jesse Watts and Daniel Legris, for the Respondents
Heard: April 30, 2026 (In Writing)
Endorsement
1The Respondents have asked the Registrar to stay 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. The parties were invited to provide submissions, which I have now reviewed.
2This proceeding is not appropriately stayed under rule 2.1.
3The applicant seeks an order setting aside or invalidating a mortgage on an alleged matrimonial home. This application is one of several mortgage-related legal proceedings ongoing between these and related parties. Those proceedings include a mortgage enforcement action commenced in Barrie by the respondents, in which they have now brought a motion seeking summary judgment.
4In support of their request for a stay under rule 2.1, the respondents submit that the parties are seeking, on consent, to have the applicant in this proceeding added as an intervenor to the mortgage enforcement action in Barrie, so that the relief sought by the applicant in this application – that is, the invalidation of the mortgage – may be heard and determined by the summary judgment motion judge. The respondents say that once the applicant is granted intervenor status, the legal issues and request for relief in this proceeding will effectively be resolved. They accordingly ask that this application be stayed pending the determination of the summary judgment motion in the Barrie action.
5This request reflects a misunderstanding of rule 2.1 motions. Rule 2.1 is not intended to allow a litigant to stay one proceeding pending potentially dispositive developments in another. Nor is it intended to short-circuit an ordinary abuse of process claim that might be advanced under other Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 or stayed 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, 343 OAC 87, at para. 8).
6The proceeding before me is not abusive or vexatious on its face. It does not cry out for an exercise of the judicial gatekeeping function. If indeed the parties manage to have the relief sought in this proceeding addressed through the Barrie summary judgment motion, then perhaps this proceeding will become redundant. Any such concern would be a substantive one appropriately raised in connection with the summary judgment motion, or by way of an ordinary motion grounded in the Rules regarding abuse of process and res judicata. It is not a concern rooted in the principles underlying rule 2.1 and it is not appropriately addressed through the rule 2.1 procedure.
7I therefore dismiss the request to stay this proceeding under rule 2.1.
Parghi J.
Date: April 30, 2026