Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• David Ahayah, self-represented, sued two Deputy Judges of the Burlington Small Claims Court, seeking $200,000 for alleged obstruction of justice, fraud, and bias in connection with Small Claims Court file SC-23-955.
• At issue were rulings made by Deputy Judge Nadler — who found service of documents unsatisfactory — and Deputy Judge Roefe, who ordered the plaintiff to redo, paginate, and add tabs to his documents.
• Judicial immunity was the determinative legal issue, as Deputy Judges hold absolute immunity from civil liability for acts performed in their judicial capacity, even where malice or bad faith is alleged.
• Counsel for the defendants sought dismissal under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits summary dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on the face of the pleadings.
• The plaintiff's written response invoked natural law, sovereign-person arguments, and religious authority, none of which constitute recognized legal grounds under Ontario civil procedure.
• On its face, the Amended Claim was found to be both frivolous and an abuse of process, warranting summary dismissal.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff, David Ahayah, acting in a self-represented capacity, commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Marlon Roefe and Eric Nadler, both Deputy Judges of the Burlington Small Claims Court. The Amended Claim was issued on June 16, 2025. The plaintiff sought $200,000 in compensation — $100,000 each from Roefe and Nadler — for alleged obstruction of justice, fraud, and bias arising from their handling of Small Claims Court file SC-23-955. In that underlying proceeding, the plaintiff had served a statement of claim on certain defendants and subsequently noted them in default. Deputy Judge Nadler issued an endorsement indicating he was not satisfied that the plaintiff had properly served certain documents. Deputy Judge Roefe later ordered the plaintiff to redo his documents, paginate them, and add tabs. The plaintiff alleged the Deputy Judges were "obstructing justice by finding excuses to delay this default judgment even longer." On January 21, 2026, counsel for the defendants requested a stay or dismissal of the proceeding under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Written submissions were filed by both parties and heard in writing on June 12, 2026, before Justice Coats.

Applicable rule and legal framework

Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides a summary procedure allowing a court to dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. As affirmed in Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, the rule must be interpreted and applied robustly but is reserved for only the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading. It is not an easily accessible alternative to a pleadings motion, a motion for summary judgment, or a trial. A court applying Rule 2.1 relies solely on the pleadings and any written submissions filed by the parties — no evidence is submitted. The statement of claim is to be read generously, with factual assertions assumed true unless obviously implausible.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Coats found that the Amended Claim was, at its core, a civil action against two Deputy Judges arising from rulings they made in the course of a Small Claims Court proceeding. It is well established in Ontario law that judicial officers, including Deputy Judges, enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for actions performed in their judicial capacity, even where allegations of malice or bad faith are raised. The court cited the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.43, s. 82, and multiple authorities including Morier and Boily v. Rivard, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716, in support of this principle. The plaintiff's written response did not engage with this legal framework. Instead, the plaintiff invoked natural law, sovereign-person theory, religious authority, and argued that the Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply to him on the basis that he is "a man, not a person." Justice Coats found the Amended Claim to be frivolous and an abuse of process, apparent on its face.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Coats dismissed the Amended Claim pursuant to Rule 2.1, effective June 12, 2026. The defendants — Deputy Judges Marlon Roefe and Eric Nadler — were the successful parties. No monetary award, damages, or costs amount was specified in the endorsement.