Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The claim was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1) for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

• Plaintiff alleged civil fraud against lawyers and their insurer based on conduct in prior litigation.

• The alleged fraudulent statements were made during legal proceedings, triggering the defence of absolute privilege.

• Court confirmed absolute privilege is a complete bar to such claims, as recently affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

• The plaintiff's attempt to relitigate a settled issue was deemed vexatious and an abuse of court process.

• No evidence was allowed under Rule 2.1 motions; the decision relied solely on pleadings and legal submissions.

Background and litigation history

Aqib Rahman, the self-represented plaintiff, owned a unit in a condominium governed by Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 (PSCC 779). He was involved in ongoing legal disputes with the condominium corporation and had previously sued the lawyers representing PSCC 779. In that prior case (CV-23-1421), Rahman alleged that the lawyers committed fraud during the litigation process. Dewart Gleason LLP, the law firm now named in the current action, represented the Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company (LPIC), which insured the lawyers in that earlier proceeding.

The earlier lawsuit was struck under Rule 21.01(1), and the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that any allegedly fraudulent statements made by the lawyers in the course of litigation were protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The current claim and the court's assessment

Rahman initiated a new claim against Dewart Gleason LLP and LPIC, arguing that they too engaged in civil fraud when defending the earlier litigation. The Superior Court reviewed the statement of claim and, pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1), issued notice of its intention to dismiss the action for being frivolous or vexatious. Rahman was invited to submit written arguments in response, which he did.

After reviewing the submissions and the pleadings, the judge held that the current action was fundamentally flawed. The same doctrine of absolute privilege applied, as the alleged statements were again made in the context of ongoing or contemplated legal proceedings. The court stressed that absolute privilege is a complete and binding defence to claims of this nature.

Application of Rule 2.1.01(1)

Rule 2.1.01(1) empowers the court to summarily dismiss a proceeding that is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, provided this is clear on the face of the pleadings. The judge relied on established appellate decisions that stress this rule must be used robustly but cautiously—only in the clearest of cases.

In this case, the court found that there was no legal merit to the plaintiff’s claims. The action was seen as an improper attempt to revive issues that had already been definitively resolved. The Court emphasized that absolute privilege rendered the claims entirely non-actionable and left no basis for the matter to proceed.

Re-litigation and abuse of process

The court also found the new action to be a form of re-litigation and thus an abuse of the court’s process. Rahman had already received a ruling from the Court of Appeal that was directly relevant to the legal question he was now attempting to revisit. The judge determined that forcing the defendants to defend this kind of claim again would be unfair and legally improper.

Outcome and final decision

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed Rahman’s action in its entirety without costs. It concluded that the statement of claim was devoid of legal merit, clearly frivolous and vexatious, and constituted an abuse of process. As a result, no trial or further proceedings were warranted. The decision serves as a clear affirmation of the limits imposed by absolute privilege and the court’s willingness to use Rule 2.1.01 to curtail baseless litigation.