Heer v. Nixon, 2026 ONSC 3673

Court File and Parties

CITATION: Heer v. Nixon, 2026 ONSC 3673

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-6062

DATE: 2026 06 23

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Rajvir Singh Heer, Plaintiff

AND:

Deann Nixon (FRO), Defendant

BEFORE: M.T. Doi J.

COUNSEL: Rajvir Singh Heer, self-represented Plaintiff

Shayna Levine-Poch, for the Defendant

HEARD: June 23, 2026 (In Chambers)

Endorsement

Overview

1On February 9, 2026, I directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff that I was considering a dismissal of the within action for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process after the defendant filed a written request to stay or dismiss the action pursuant to 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.

2Having reviewed the statement of claim issued November 3, 2025 in this matter, I find that the within action is clearly frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process and, therefore, should be dismissed pursuant to 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 2021 CanLII 4696 (SCC).

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 entire body of the statement of claim consists of the following two lines of content:

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

Analysis

6As set out below, I find that the action is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

7There is no plausible cause of action pleaded in the statement of claim as it has no material facts or any particulars to explain the basis for the claim as pleaded. The pleading lacks any factual basis to establish the claim being asserted.

8In my view, pleading the statement of claim in this manner without any material facts or any particulars to establish the basis for the claim is vexatious and an abuse of process.

9Further, despite having the opportunity to file written submissions to explain the basis of the action and why it should be allowed to proceed, the plaintiff delivered no submissions and did not otherwise respond when provided with notice dated February 11, 2026 that the court was considering whether to stay or dismiss the proceeding under r. 2.1.01 for appearing to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. The plaintiff did not make use of the opportunity to persuade the court that the action should not be dismissed when afforded the chance to do so.

10Taking everything into account, I find that the action is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process. Accordingly, the action is dismissed without costs.

Date: June 23, 2026 M.T. Doi J.

CITATION: Heer v. Nixon, 2026 ONSC 3673