Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Summary dismissal under Rule 2.1.01(1) for pleadings that are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process

• Gatekeeping function applied only in the clearest cases; focus confined to the face of the pleadings

• No evidence considered on a Rule 2.1 motion; court may review reasons/pleadings from other proceedings for abusiveness

• Statement of claim lacked any material facts or discernable cause of action, rendering it unintelligible and non-actionable

• Dismissal granted with leave to amend within 60 days to plead relief known to law

• No costs awarded; plaintiffs encouraged to seek legal advice

Background and parties
Two self-represented plaintiffs, Beverly Ferguson and Clement Ferguson, sued Equitable Bank, EQB Covered Bond Guarantor Limited, and two individuals (Andrew Moor and Chadwick Westlake). They claimed $890,000 and restoration of “full property rights to the Clement-Claude Family of Ferguson.” The proceeding came before Justice M.T. Doi of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and was determined in writing on June 26, 2025.

Procedural posture
On February 11, 2025, the judge directed the registrar to notify the plaintiffs that the court was considering dismissal under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for frivolous, vexatious, or abusive proceedings. The plaintiffs were invited to make submissions but did not respond.

Key legal principles
Rule 2.1 empowers the court to summarily weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, but only in the clearest of cases. The Rule focuses on the pleadings (and submissions under the Rule) without evidence. It does not replace more robust procedures like pleadings motions or summary judgment where an action is not clearly abusive on its face.

Court’s analysis
The judge reviewed the plaintiffs’ one-page statement of claim and concluded it did not plead any cause of action or material facts establishing a discernable basis for relief. As framed, the claim could not possibly succeed and thus was frivolous. It was also vexatious because it would unfairly force the defendants to litigate without any intelligible factual or legal foundation. The absence of any submissions from the plaintiffs, despite notice, further supported the conclusion that the proceeding was an abuse of process.

Outcome and implications
The statement of claim was dismissed in its entirety under Rule 2.1.01(1), with leave to deliver an amended statement of claim within 60 days that pleads relief known to law. No costs were awarded, and the defendants were relieved of the need to obtain the plaintiffs’ approval as to the form of the order. The court encouraged the plaintiffs to obtain legal advice before attempting to amend.