Justice Centa's ruling in Mohammad v. Bakr, 2024 ONSC 290 comes from a Toronto Civil Practice Court (CPC) appearance. This case is a rare instance of a published CPC decision, providing valuable lessons for litigators in early case planning. Notably, that CPC Judges will apply considerable discretion in scheduling motions.
The decision stemmed from Justice Centa noting similarities between this case and a prior lawsuit involving the same plaintiff. As the decision reads, Justice Centa then took judicial initiative to apply rule 2.1.02 – a rule designed to dismiss frivolous or vexatious actions.
Justice Centa's ruling aligns with the principles outlined in previous cases, such as Dunning v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2023 ONSC 73 and Foley v. Victoria Hospital London Health Services Centre, 2023 ONSC 4978. These cases underscore the notion that the court should not use rule 2.1.01 for close calls. Instead, as stated,
neither the opposing parties nor the court should be required to devote scarce resources to proceedings or motions that are clearly frivolous and vexatious. Allowing such proceedings to occupy space on the court docket takes time away from other, more meritorious cases. There is simply no benefit to allowing clearly frivolous and vexatious proceedings to continue.
Mohammad v. Bakr, being a published decision from a CPC attendance, is instructive – especially for those in early litigation stages. It illustrates the court's gatekeeping role and the importance of evaluating a case's merit before proceeding.
This ruling serves as a strategic guide for litigators. It underscores the need for careful assessment at the outset, aligning case strategy with judicial expectations for efficiency and merit.
