Heer v. Kaler, 2026 ONSC 2826

CITATION: Heer v. Kaler, 2026 ONSC 2826

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-6063

DATE: 2026 05 13

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Rajvir Singh Heer, Plaintiff

AND:

Preet Kaler, Defendant

BEFORE: M.T. Doi J.

COUNSEL: Rajvir Singh Heer, self-represented Plaintiff

Hunter Norwick, for the Defendant

HEARD: May 13, 2026 (In Writing)

Endorsement

Overview

1On February 9, 2026, I directed the registrar to give the plaintiff notice that I had reviewed the statement of claim and was considering a dismissal of the action for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court’s process after the defendant filed a written request to stay or dismiss the action under r.2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194. The registrar notified the plaintiff of my concerns and invited him to provide submissions but none were delivered.

2As explained below, I find that the action is clearly frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process and, therefore, should be dismissed under r. 2.1.01(1).

Legal Principles

3The court may exercise its gatekeeping function by making a summary determination as to whether, on its face, a proceeding should be dismissed for being frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process: r. 2.1.01(1) . A frivolous or vexatious action lacks a legal basis or legal merit, or is brought without reasonable grounds: Van Sluytman v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2017 ONSC 692 at para 11.

4The Court of Appeal explained the key principles governing the operation of r. 2.1 in Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2020 ONCA 690 at para 8, leave to appeal refused [2020] SCCA No. 473, as follows:

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 refused.

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.

The Claim

5The body of the statement of claim issued November 3, 2025 consists of two lines of text that read as follows:

Harassment, racism, hate crime, defamatory libel, lack of duties/responsibilities, misleading court, non-human/professional activities, claim C$1 million.

Analysis

6I am satisfied that the action is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process for several reasons.

7First, I am unable to discern a plausible cause of action in the statement of claim as it pleads no material facts and provides no particulars to explain the basis for the claim being raised. In effect, the statement of claim completely lacks any factual basis to support the claim as asserted.

8Second, I find that pleading a claim in this manner with no material facts to support the allegations is vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process.

9Third, despite having the opportunity to file written submissions to explain why the action should be allowed to proceed, the plaintiff filed no submissions or otherwise respond to the notice in the February 9, 2026 endorsement. Although given the opportunity to persuade the court that the action should not be dismissed, the plaintiff did not make use of this opportunity to do so.

10Based on the foregoing, I find this to be a clear case in which the frivolous, vexatious, and abusive nature of the action is apparent on the face of the pleading. Accordingly, the action is dismissed without costs.