Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court struck six of the eight actions brought by Mr. Ahmad and his corporations against Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Canada as an abuse of process.
   
• Mr. Ahmad and his two corporations were declared vexatious litigants under section 73 of The Court of King's Bench Act.
   
• Manitoba was removed as a respondent in a related application at the start of oral argument, leaving Winnipeg as the sole named party in that action.
   
• Evidence established at least 31 claims filed by Mr. Ahmad or his corporations since 2022, with 21 dismissed or struck under Rule 25.11.
   
• A comprehensive vexatious litigant order now restricts future filings against Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and related entities without prior judicial leave.
   
• Only two matters survived the strike order: a statutory land transfer tax appeal and Winnipeg's own application for a vexatious litigant order.
   

Facts of the case

The decision arises from eight consolidated actions before the Court of King's Bench of Manitoba, all connected to a pattern of litigation brought by Ayaz Ahmad, either personally or through two corporations he controls, 10042210 Manitoba Inc. and 10064143 Manitoba Ltd. One corporation operates a convenience store in Winnipeg, while the other runs a courier business, and Mr. Ahmad confirmed he is the directing mind of both. Since 2022, Mr. Ahmad or the corporations have commenced at least 31 claims or applications in the court, of which 21 were dismissed or struck under Rule 25.11, generating 26 notices of appeal. The disputes span several subject areas: tobacco licensing and seizures under Manitoba's tobacco regime, retail sales tax (RST) assessments, a traffic ticket, conduct by Winnipeg Police Service officers surrounding Mr. Ahmad's arrest and release, rejection of court filings by Registry Staff, and the refusal of Sheriff's Officers to act as intermediaries for delivering his documents. Winnipeg filed an application in one of the matters (Matter #3) seeking a vexatious litigant order against Mr. Ahmad and the corporations, which Manitoba and Canada later joined. At the outset of argument, the presiding judge struck the notice of application against Manitoba in a separate matter and dismissed Mr. Ahmad's motion to add Canada as a party, leaving Winnipeg as the sole respondent in that proceeding.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The court's authority to strike pleadings stemmed from Rule 25.11(1) of the Court of King's Bench Rules, which permits striking a document that may prejudice a fair trial, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, constitutes an abuse of process, or fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The vexatious litigant order itself was grounded in section 73 of The Court of King's Bench Act, which allows a judge satisfied that a person has persistently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings to bar further filings without leave. Other statutes bore on individual claims: the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act and related licensing rules governed the tobacco seizures and licence suspension; the Retail Sales Tax Act and the Tax Administration and Miscellaneous Taxes Act framed the RST disputes, including the statutory appeal mechanism in section 112.3(1) of the latter; section 14(2) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act was cited as precluding injunctive relief against the Crown on the facts pleaded; and The City of Winnipeg Charter was referenced in rejecting Mr. Ahmad's argument that Winnipeg lacked legal status as a municipality.

Reasoning and analysis

Rempel J. applied the established test for striking frivolous and vexatious proceedings, drawn from Nygård International Partnership v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2011 MBQB 124, requiring a claim to lack any probable justification in law. The judge also invoked the abuse-of-process framework from Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, and concluded that Mr. Ahmad's pleadings were, in the court's words, "word salads" devoid of legal meaning that improperly sought to re-litigate matters already decided, contrary to the finality principle in Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44. Turning to the vexatious litigant order, the court relied on the non-exhaustive factors from Re Lang Michener v. Fabian and the guidance in College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba v. Hancock, 2023 MBCA 70, assessing Mr. Ahmad's conduct objectively against the "whole history of the matter" as described in Green v. University of Winnipeg, 2018 MBCA 137. The judge found Mr. Ahmad to be an atypical vexatious litigant in some respects — he was polite in court, punctual, and consistently paid costs awards — but concluded these traits did not offset the sheer volume and repackaging of meritless claims, nor his argumentative and disrespectful conduct toward Registry Staff and Sheriff's Officers when his documents were rejected. The court determined that Mr. Ahmad had crossed the line from an overzealous litigation strategy into an abusive one, warranting a broad and comprehensive order.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court struck all of the actions before it as an abuse of process, with two exceptions: Matter #7 (CI 25-01-52266), a statutory appeal concerning a land transfer tax refund, and Matter #3 (CI 25-01-51048), Winnipeg's own application for a vexatious litigant order. Winnipeg, joined by Manitoba and Canada, succeeded in having Mr. Ahmad and his two corporations declared vexatious litigants under section 73 of the Act. The resulting order imposes extensive restrictions, including a requirement that any new claims against Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, or related parties be pre-approved by a judge, limits on Mr. Ahmad's communication with court registry staff to a weekly email, and detailed procedural preconditions for seeking leave to file, such as page limits and sworn affidavits confirming outstanding costs have been paid. No monetary damages were awarded to any party in this decision; the various damages claims advanced by Mr. Ahmad were struck rather than adjudicated on their merits. The question of costs was left open, with the parties directed to file written submissions if they cannot reach agreement, so the total monetary outcome of the proceeding is Not Specified.