Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The moving party sought relief from service rules and clarification of the defendant’s identity in a long-standing professional licensing dispute.

• Confusion over the formal name of the regulatory body led to repeated procedural errors by the self-represented litigant.

• The court reaffirmed that the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario was properly named and served throughout.

• Prior negligence and bad faith claims were dismissed based on statutory immunity and lack of evidence.

• Attempts to reopen or appeal earlier judgments failed due to procedural bars and lack of jurisdiction.

• Court imposed filing restrictions to prevent further vexatious litigation against the professional regulator.

Background and procedural history

Behrouz Salehi, a licensed engineer, has been engaged in a prolonged legal dispute with the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (APEO), the regulatory body responsible for licensing engineers in Ontario under the Professional Engineers Act. After immigrating to Canada from Iran, Mr. Salehi applied for licensure and was eventually approved in 2013 following a complex application process involving bridging programs and licensing exams. Soon after receiving his licence, he filed a civil action against APEO, alleging negligence and bad faith during the licensing process.

His initial claim was struck for failure to plead the necessary legal elements, though leave to amend was granted. Following an amended claim, APEO moved for summary judgment. In 2015, the Superior Court dismissed the action, ruling that APEO owed no prima facie duty of care, and even if it did, that duty would be negated by public policy considerations. The court also found no evidence of bad faith. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld this dismissal in 2016, and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal.

Subsequent motions and new evidence attempts

Mr. Salehi later attempted to reopen the case by relying on Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to move to set aside or vary a judgment based on fraud or new facts discovered after the order was made. He cited newly obtained transcripts of the summary judgment hearing, letters from professional engineers supporting his position, and third-party reports critical of APEO’s treatment of foreign-trained engineers.

In a 2022 ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that such motions must be brought before the Superior Court, not the Court of Appeal, when based on new evidence or allegations of fraud. Following this direction, Mr. Salehi brought a motion for leave to pursue a Rule 59.06 motion before Justice Dow in 2024. The motion was dismissed as baseless and lacking merit. Justice Dow found that the transcript was not truly new evidence and that the supporting letters could have been obtained earlier. No appeal was filed from that order.

Current motion and procedural confusion

Mr. Salehi then filed a motion in 2025 asking the Court of Appeal to provide the contact information of the “defendant” or to allow an appeal to proceed without serving the respondent. He also requested the court to reconsider the case by correcting the defendant’s name. Justice Lauwers heard the matter and, recognizing the motion as a request for directions, explained that the court had no jurisdiction to provide the requested relief, as there was no active proceeding before it.

The court reiterated that APEO had always been the proper party and had been properly named in all proceedings. The confusion stemmed from Mr. Salehi’s misunderstanding of APEO’s formal name and its use of the operating name “Professional Engineers Ontario.” The court also confirmed that service on APEO’s counsel would have been appropriate and that procedural challenges related to past title amendments were not grounds for new motions.

Filing restrictions and final remarks

In concluding remarks, Justice Lauwers acknowledged Mr. Salehi’s frustration and the emotional toll of the litigation. However, he emphasized that the legal avenues had been fully exhausted and that no further motions would be entertained absent leave. To prevent continued misuse of court processes, the court imposed a filing restriction: Mr. Salehi is now prohibited from filing any further materials with the Court of Appeal relating to APEO unless he first obtains written permission from a judge of the court, supported by a concise, three-page request.

This case illustrates the limits of judicial review and procedural remedies in professional regulation disputes, particularly where litigants repeatedly seek to reopen settled decisions without new, compelling evidence or legal basis.