Sean Murtha

The plaintiff, Ahmad Mohammad, commenced an action against university officials and another individual, alleging privacy breaches, misdiagnosis, and conspiracy.

The court, on its own initiative following a referral, reviewed the statement of claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the action to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to its lack of a plausible cause of action, absence of material facts supporting serious allegations, and the plaintiff's history of repeated meritless litigation.

Despite being given an opportunity to provide submissions, the plaintiff failed to do so.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, Dillon Parris, commenced an application seeking the reversion of title to his former home and $80 million in damages for alleged breaches of his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He claimed fraud by the respondents, The Corporation of the City of Brampton and Mayor Patrick Brown, for failing to revert title and profiting from this alleged fraud.

The respondents sought dismissal of the application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting a lack of connection between the respondents and the applicant's loss of property or subsequent issues.

The application was dismissed.

The court, acting on a referral under Rule 2.1.01(7) following a request from the defendants, reviewed the statement of claim and found it appeared frivolous and vexatious.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be given notice (Form 2.1A) that the action's dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 is being considered, and pending the outcome of this written hearing, the plaintiff's action is stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Further filings by the plaintiff are restricted to submissions regarding the potential dismissal.

The appellant, Ahmad Mohammad, appealed an order dismissing his underlying action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered dismissing the appeal itself as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

Despite the appellant's assertion of psychiatric conditions affecting his understanding, the court noted his extensive history of similar proceedings, some previously terminated under Rule 2.1.

The court found no arguable basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision, which identified multiple defects in the original action, including allegations subject to absolute privilege, a rambling and incomprehensible statement of claim, requests for unavailable relief, and rhetorical questions indicative of a frivolous claim.

The appeal was deemed to exhibit the same indicia of abuse.

The plaintiff purchased property from the defendant church to build social housing.

Prior to the sale, the church retained the defendant environmental consultant to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

The consultant's report, which contained a standard disclaimer clause limiting liability to third parties, was provided to the plaintiff by the church without the consultant's knowledge or consent.

After closing, the plaintiff discovered soil contamination and sued the church and the consultant for negligent misrepresentation.

The consultant moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the disclaimer clause effectively excluded any duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and dismissed the action and crossclaims against the consultant.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, brought a defamation action against the defendant, a former law partner and opposing counsel, over an article published in an insurance adjusters' magazine.

The article accused the plaintiff of making false representations during a pretrial conference, based on a lower court decision that was later overturned on appeal.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendant moved to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the action, finding that while the claim had substantial merit, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had no valid defence, as the defence of qualified privilege was legally tenable and required a trial to determine if it was defeated by malice.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from two motions: the defendant's successful motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim (with leave to amend) and the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for disclosure.

The court awarded costs to the defendant, considering the defendant's partial success on the motion to strike, the plaintiff's inappropriate submissions, and the plaintiff's financial circumstances.

The total costs awarded to the defendant were $11,489.08.

The plaintiff, a former PhD student, sued the University of Waterloo for $209 million, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to his academic supervision and eventual termination from the PhD program.

The University moved to strike the plaintiff's 55-page Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, being frivolous/vexatious, and pleading extensive evidence.

The court granted the University's motion, striking the entire pleading but granting the plaintiff leave to file a fresh statement of claim limited to claims concerning continuity of supervision, wrongful termination for lack of a supervisor, failure to inform about policies, and intentional infliction of mental distress (if properly pleaded as extreme, flagrant, and outrageous conduct).

Claims related to the quality of supervision, academic freedom, access to hardware, and investigation of research misconduct were dismissed as falling within the University's broad academic discretion or lacking proper pleading.

Allegations of malice and fraud were struck without leave to amend due to lack of factual foundation.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a failed motion by Queen's University to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The court found that while the plaintiff's pleading was poorly drafted, the defendant's motion to strike entirely failed.

Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The court adjusted the plaintiff's claimed costs, reducing the hourly rate for senior counsel and applying a partial indemnity rate to the fees of an outsourced research lawyer, ultimately fixing costs at $6,950.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant university brought a motion to strike the plaintiff medical student's statement of claim, arguing that the dispute concerned an internal academic decision regarding professionalism and should be pursued via judicial review rather than a civil action.

The plaintiff alleged that the university breached a settlement agreement regarding his remediation program by subsequently requiring a comprehensive psychiatric assessment.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the dispute was purely academic, as the allegations could support a claim for breach of contract regarding the implementation of the academic decision.

The University of Manitoba brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing it was statute-barred and concerned an academic dispute over his 2007 medical school application.

The plaintiff contended his claim was based on the University's attempts to suppress his publications through legal threats, infringing his Charter rights to freedom of expression.

The court found the "pith and substance" of the claim related to the academic decision-making process, which was statute-barred and not within the court's jurisdiction.

The court also determined that the "cease and desist" letter sent to the plaintiff did not constitute a violation of his Charter rights or a sustainable cause of action.

The motion to strike was granted, and costs were awarded to the University.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and to obtain court approval of an infant settlement under Rule 7.08.

The underlying action alleged psychological and related harm after the plaintiffs claimed to have discovered a moldy piece of chicken in a box of cereal.

The court found that a binding settlement agreement had been reached through email communications between counsel.

However, the required sworn affidavit evidence and motion materials necessary for approval of a minor’s settlement under Rule 7.08 had not been properly filed.

As a result, the court could not approve the settlement and restored the action to the trial list.