Court File and Parties

CITATION: Ehsani v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 2778

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00746017-0000

DATE: 20260512

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: MARYAM EHSANI, Plaintiff

-and-

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO, Defendant

BEFORE: Mathen, J.

COUNSEL: Self-represented, for the Plaintiff Samantha Iantomasi, for the Defendant

READ: May 11, 2026

Endorsement

[1] The registrar’s office referred this motion to me pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request from lawyers for the Defendant, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), under rule 2.1.01(6).

[2] The Plaintiff, Maryam Ehsani, filed a statement of claim that does not appear to disclose a cause of action. Instead, the Plaintiff has handwritten the following on the court form:

a. “misdiagnose my child my son to wrong medication long time”; and

b. The CPSO is requested to “come to court”.

[3] The statement of claim contains no other information.

[4] On April 16, 2026, I directed the registrar to give notice to the Plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under r. 2.1.01(2). The notice was sent on April 16, 2026.

[5] The Plaintiff did not reply.

DECISION

[6] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that this case should be dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.01.

ISSUE

[7] The only issue is whether this Claim is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process on its face.

ANALYSIS

[8] My findings are contained in the following analysis.

[9] Rule 2.1.01(1) provides as follows:

The court may, on its own initiative, 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.

[10] As Myers J. writes in Gao v. Ontario WSIB and Ontario Ombudsman, 2014 ONSC 6100, 37 C.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 9, the Rule is not meant for ‘close calls’.

[11] The Plaintiff’s claim is not a close call.

Frivolous

[12] A frivolous proceeding lacks a legal basis or legal merit or is brought without reasonable grounds: Annotation to rule 2.1 in Ontario Superior Court Practice, the Hons. Todd Archibald, Stephen Firestone and Tamara Sugunasiri; Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692, at para. 11.

[13] A frivolous proceeding is readily recognizable as devoid of merit. It has little prospect of success: Gill v. MacIver, 2023 ONCA 776, at para. 3; Lavallee v. Isak, 2022 ONCA 290, at para. 19; Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 643, 268 O.A.C. 153, at para. 19. It will necessarily or inevitably fail: R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11, at para. 67.

[14] The within Action is frivolous. It does not state the legal harm or breach the court should remedy. The Plaintiff appears to think her child was misdiagnosed, but the connection to the Defendant is unintelligible. There is no stated relief. The claim will inevitably fail.

Vexatious

[15] Vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose other than the assertion of legitimate rights, including the harassment and oppression of other parties: Re Lang Michener and Fabian, 1987 172 (ON SC). Common hallmarks of vexatious litigation include curious formatting, rambling discourse or rhetorical questions: Khan v. Krylov & Company LLP, 2017 ONCA 625 citing Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497, at para. 15.

[16] The action bears the following hallmarks of a vexatious proceeding:

a. The statement of claim has curious formatting and is difficult to follow. As stated earlier, the Plaintiff has not indicated a cause of action, or a requested remedy. It appears that the Plaintiff’s complaint is about misdiagnosis of her child, but there is no more information than that bare assertion, which is handwritten.

b. The Plaintiff has included odd and irrelevant attachments, such as two pages from a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in which the Plaintiff moves to set aside the dismissal of her appeal of the trial judge’s decision in her family law dispute. On its face, the Statement of Claim establishes no connection between the Plaintiff’s family law dispute and the Defendant College.

c. The Plaintiff also served the College with a “petition” from the Natural Health Product Protection Association, which document has no relevance to the Defendant.

Conclusion

[17] Based on the above facts and law, I conclude that the Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous and vexatious. The failings in the statement of claim are foundational and cannot be rectified through amendment. Therefore, this is the kind of case to which Rule 2.1 properly applies.

ORDER

[18] The Defendant’s motion is granted. The Plaintiff Maryam Ehsani’s claim is dismissed.

Mathen, J.

Date: May 12, 2026