Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Emad Elguindy sought judicial review of Deputy Judge Aird's ruling in a Small Claims Court action against Lufthansa Airlines, following an adjournment and a $2,000.00 costs order.
• Central to the application was whether the Deputy Judge should have recused himself based on an alleged prior professional relationship with the defendant's lawyer.
• At issue procedurally was whether the Ministry of the Attorney General could bring Rule 2.1 motions without first filing a Notice of Appearance in the application.
• Mr. Elguindy improperly framed the application by failing to name the civil defendant in the underlying Small Claims Court action as a party.
• Naming the Deputy Judge as a respondent was found to be improper, as judges are broadly immune from civil liability for acts performed in their judicial capacity.
• Rule 2.1.01 was applied to dismiss the entire application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process on the face of the pleadings.

Facts of the case

In early 2024, Emad Elguindy commenced an action against Lufthansa Airlines in the Burlington Small Claims Court (Action No. SC-24-611). The matter proceeded to trial on 5 November 2025. During his opening statement, Mr. Elguindy — without a proper motion record — raised an oral recusal request, alleging that Deputy Judge Sam Aird had previously acted as a lawyer for the defendant's lawyer. The trial was adjourned as a result, and Mr. Elguindy was ordered to pay costs of $2,000.00. The Deputy Judge ordered those costs to be paid before the matter returned for trial, but did not make the continuation of Mr. Elguindy's action contingent on that payment. By Notice of Application dated 7 November 2025, Mr. Elguindy sought judicial review of the Deputy Judge's ruling. On 11 November 2025, he brought a motion to stay the costs award, and on 14 January 2026, he brought a motion for default determination of his application, on the basis that the respondents had filed no Notice of Appearance.

Procedural and legal framework at issue

The Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) appeared at a Case Management Conference, acting for both Deputy Judge Aird and the Ontario Small Claims Court, both named as respondents. Rather than filing a Notice of Appearance or responding to Mr. Elguindy's motions, MAG brought two motions under Rule 2.1: one to dismiss the application in its entirety under Rule 2.1.01, and one to dismiss Mr. Elguindy's motions under Rule 2.1.02. Mr. Elguindy challenged MAG's standing to bring these motions, arguing that a party must file a Notice of Appearance before seeking relief under Rule 2.1. The court rejected that argument, finding that Rule 2.1 contains no such prerequisite, and that requiring one would be contrary to the rule's purpose of providing an efficient summary process for weeding out clearly abusive proceedings.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Trimble applied the standard set out by the Court of Appeal in Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, which requires that the frivolous, vexatious, or abusive nature of the proceeding be apparent on the face of the pleading itself. The court identified two independent grounds for dismissal. First, the application was improperly framed: the proper parties to a judicial review proceeding are the parties to the underlying decision, yet Mr. Elguindy failed to name Lufthansa Airlines — the civil defendant in his Small Claims action — as a respondent. Second, it is improper to name the adjudicating judge as a party to a judicial review application. The court noted that judges are broadly immune from civil liability for anything done or said in their judicial capacity, and that this immunity extends even to acts alleged to have been done in bad faith or maliciously, citing Morier and Boily v. Rivard, [1985] 2 SCR 716, among other authorities. The court further held that s. 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c J.1 does not mandate that a decision-maker be named; that choice belongs to the decision-maker, not the applicant. The court also observed that in a prior proceeding, Mr. Elguindy had correctly styled his application without naming the Deputy Judge, indicating awareness of proper procedure.

Ruling and overall outcome

MAG's Rule 2.1.01 motion was allowed, and the application was dismissed in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. As a result, the court found it unnecessary to address either of Mr. Elguindy's motions or MAG's separate Rule 2.1.02 motion. MAG, on behalf of Deputy Judge Aird and the Ontario Small Claims Court, was the successful party. On the question of costs of the judicial review proceeding itself, the court directed the parties to file written submissions — MAG by 4:00 p.m. on 8 June 2026, and Mr. Elguindy by 4:00 p.m. on 22 June 2026 — with no right of reply. No specific costs amount for the judicial review application had been determined as of the date of the endorsement (25 May 2026).