CITATION: Sohanlal v. Regional Municipality of Durham Police Services Board, 2026 ONSC 4685
COURT FILE NO.: CV-26-00012520-0000
DATE: 20260813
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Rohit Sohanlal
Plaintiff
-and-
Regional Municipality of Durham Police Services Board, Toronto Police Services Board, City of Toronto, Municipality of Clarington, Durham College of Applied Arts and Technology, The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General of Ontario, Starbucks Coffee Canada, inc., Glassdoor llc, Primerica Financial Services (Canada) ltd., Kevin Clark, Francesca Carelli, Chris Fortier, York Condominium Corporation no. 340, Hazelview Property Services Inc., Kanav Sahi, Bessy Morgan, Ling Zhong, Kalliopi Axiotis, Dmitri Alexeiouk, University of Ottawa, CIBC Canada, Marie-Josée Hérard, and John Doe(s)
Defendants
BEFORE: Merritt J.
COUNSEL: Rohit Sohanlal, self-represented
Bruno Roti, for the Defendants Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc.
HEARD: August 13, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Plaintiff submitted an Urgent Motion Request to a Judge or Associate Judge seeking a date for an urgent motion for:
An interim/interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants and the “Broadcaster Group” from continuing alleged unlawful harassment, intimidation, surveillance, monitoring, and tracking;
An Order for the Interim Preservation of Evidence directing the Attorney General of Ontario to preserve and retain Oshawa Superior Court security “ video recordings and access logs from July 7, July 8, and November 4, 2025;
An Order for the Interim Preservation of Evidence directing the Police Defendants to isolate and safeguard all records, metadata, and communications relating to the Plaintiff from 2022 to the present, overriding routine deletion schedules;
An Order under the Court’s equitable Norwich jurisdiction directing Police Defendants to disclose information capable of identifying the presently unidentified John Doe Defendants described in the Statement of Claim as the “Broadcaster Group”; and
An Order permitting substituted service by email and/or registered mail due to the Plaintiff residing outside Canada.
[2] In support of the Request for an Urgent Motion, the Plaintiff filed a Draft Urgent Motion Record, a copy of the Statement of Claim issued on June 23, 2026, a Notice of Constitutional Question, a draft Factum and a draft Order.
[3] On July 22, 2026 I issued an endorsement indicating that I had reviewed the Statement of Claim and it appeared to me that it may be frivolous and vexatious.
[4] I directed the registrar to give notice to the parties in Form 2.1B that the court is considering making an order under r 2.1.01 dismissing the action and allowed the parties to make submissions in writing.
[5] The Plaintiff filed a 10-page submission that does not comply with r.4.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and has 168 pages of attachments. The left margin is too small, the font is too small and the document is not double spaced. Attempts to circumvent the requirements of r. 4.01 are to be discouraged; however, given that the Plaintiff is self-represented, I will overlook this non-compliance and consider the Plaintiff’s submissions.
[6] The Defendants Toronto Police Service Board (the “Board”) and City of Toronto (the “City”) filed seven-page submissions with 27 pages of attachments.
[7] The Plaintiff submits that his Statement of Claim pleads legally recognizable civil causes of action grounded in material facts and ought to proceed through the ordinary civil litigation process.
[8] The Plaintiff submits that to the extent that the court identifies any structural, formatting, or drafting deficiencies within the pleading, he should be granted leave to amend, deliver particulars, sever his claims or have his claim case managed.
[9] Rule 2.1.01 (1) provides: “The court may make an order staying or dismissing a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.”
[10] Rule 2.1.01’s purpose is “nipping in the bud actions which are frivolous and vexatious in order to protect the parties opposite from inappropriate costs and to protect the court from misallocation of scarce resources”, Sumner v. Ottawa (Police Services), 2023 ONCA 140 par para 9 citing the court below citing Markowa v. Adamson Cosmetic Facial Surgery Inc., 2014 ONSC 6664, at para. 3.
Rule 2.1 is intended to provide a summary procedure that permits a judge to quickly weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. A frivolous claim is one that lacks a legal basis, a vexatious claim is one instituted without reasonable grounds or is brought were it is obvious that it cannot succeed, and an abuse of process is one where the proceeding is inconsistent with the objectives of public policy.
Gibson v. City of Hamilton (Access to Housing) et al., 2026 ONSC 4512 at para. 7
[11] In Chijindu v. Law Society of Ontario 2025 ONSC 6046 Associate Justice Kamal set out the following principles applicable to r. 2.1.01:
Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a summary procedure that allows the court to dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.
Rule 2.1 must be “interpreted and applied robustly so that a motion judge can effectively exercise their gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process”. See: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at para. 8.
It is not for close calls; it may only be used 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 supported resort to the attenuated process” . See Mohammad v. McMaster University, 2023 ONCA 598, at para. 6, citing Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at para. 8; Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320, at para. 6.
The statement of claim (or in this case the Notice of Application) must be read generously, and I must assume that the assertions of fact are true unless they are obviously implausible or ridiculous. See: Sumner v. Ottawa (Police Services), 2023 ONCA 140 at para. 9.
In Macmull v. Ontario (Ministry of Health), 2023 ONSC 2380, the Court considered dismissing an application under r. 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process because the application appeared to be duplicative of previous application for judicial review. The two applications sought review of different decisions of the HPARB but were based on the same factual circumstances. The application was found to be frivolous, vexatious, and without any basis in law. The frivolous and abusive nature of the application was apparent on the face of the notice of application.
While no evidence is submitted on a Rule 2.1 motion, the Court may review reasons and pleadings from other proceedings to determine whether the case is abusive. See Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONCA 320 at para. 9; Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2020 ONCA 690 at para. 8; Mukwa v. Farm Credit of Canada, 2022 ONCA 320 at para. 13
[12] A proceeding that has no chance of success and seeks to re-litigate matters previously determined is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process: 2257573 Ontario Inc. v. Furney, 2026 ONCA 124 at para 3; Damallie v. Ping, 2017 ONCA 146 at paras 10-12.
[13] I have instructed myself to overlook drafting deficiencies given that the Plaintiff is self-represented and not legally trained. Notwithstanding any drafting deficiencies, for the reasons set out below the substantive claims raised are not viable and cannot be cured by an amendment, particulars, severance or case management.
[14] The Plaintiff seeks damages of $20,000,000, injunctions and declarations. The Plaintiff claims that his action “arises from a continuous, cumulative, and escalating course of conduct involving intentional torts, statutory breaches, and institutional failures…”.
[15] The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants are acting in concert with or under the influence of the unidentified “Broadcaster Group”. He alleges that since 2022 the “Broadcaster Group” has been acting “under the colour of state authority” and “rebroadcasting” the plaintiff’s private thoughts”. He says that the “Broadcaster Group” engaged in recurring conduct experienced by the Plaintiff as harassment, auditory intrusion, commentary, privacy-related disturbance, perceived monitoring, dissemination, apparent rebroadcasting, or apparent circulation of private information”. The Plaintiff says that he experiences “auditory disturbances and speech-like commentary” as well as “sexualized harassment and non-consensual bodily sensations” that he says is “technologically facilitated”.
[16] The Plaintiff pleads that this conduct occurred across residences, transit systems, public locations, commercial environments, institutional settings, and interactions involving third parties.
[17] The Plaintiff admits in the claim that he does not know what hardware or software the Broadcaster Group is using to torment him.
[18] The Plaintiff’s claim against the police defendants relates to their alleged failures to properly investigate his complaints.
[19] The claim is 119 pages long and contains many examples such as the following:
On June 20, 2024, during the late evening hours, while the Plaintiff was in bed, the Broadcaster Group projected derogatory and sexually humiliating commentary. This commentary was broadcasted via the audio projected on an automobile at the nearby intersection, referencing the Plaintiff's private activities.
The Plaintiff documented this interference on or about June 23, 2024; subsequently, the Plaintiff experienced the effect of portions of these private notes being extracted and broadcasted out externally. The Plaintiff noted the breach and captured additional evidence to preserve a record of the environment during the intrusion.
Following the assault, the ongoing harassment continued, introducing new acts such as acoustic projections directly onto his body, in this and subsequent housings.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff called police to the premises on multiple occasions, including calls including to non-emergency in early October 2024 reporting severe sexual harassment in the housing by the Broadcaster Group. Police attended the premises, but no resolution or enforcement action was reported.
This hounding involved explicit, sexualized commentary perpetrated by the Broadcaster Group whose auditory projections appeared synchronized in real-time with the Plaintiff's private, intimate acts within the bedroom. This conduct was consistent with the methodology of abuse experienced across all prior and subsequent residences, as well as within commercial establishments and transit networks.
[20] At its simplest, the claim is that the unidentified “Broadcaster Group” is influencing the Defendants and using unidentified technology to conduct surveillance on the Plaintiff even across the word, disseminate his private information and to cause the Plaintiff to hear voices and feel pressure sensations that he describes as “pulses,” “thumps,” “spots,” “line-like” impressions” “spasms” and “burning sensations- localized thermal or stinging sensations” on his body including in his back, thighs, buttocks, and genital regions.
[21] The Plaintiff’s action is frivolous and vexatious because it cannot succeed. This is a clear case where the assertions of fact are obviously implausible, ridiculous and manifestly incapable of being proven true.
[22] This action is also vexatious and an abuse of process because the Plaintiff has brought multiple actions involving the same basic issues.
[23] The Plaintiff has commenced four prior proceedings relating to his allegations against the Broadcaster Group. Three actions bearing court file nos. CV-25-00736754-0000, CV-25-00001893-0000 (in Oshawa) and SC-25-00003867-0000 have been dismissed under r. 2.1.01. In the fourth action bearing court file no. SC-25-00007259-0000 the Board is seeking a dismissal.
[24] The Plaintiff issued a claim bearing court file no. CV-25-00735756-0000 with similar allegations of “unusual, intrusive, and distressing behavior from individuals both within and outside the property. These incidents included perceived surveillance, a lack of privacy, intrusion into my religious rights, and ultimately, forceful eviction without any notice”. This action was dismissed by Dow J. on June 16, 2026 under r. 2.1.01.
[25] The Plaintiff issued a claim bearing court file no. CV-25-00735884-0000 with similar allegations against Primerica. The Plaintiff discontinued this action.
[26] The Plaintiff’s action is dismissed.
Merritt J.
Date: August 13, 2026