SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Taha v. National Bank of Canada, 2018 PESC 29 Date: 20180824 Docket: S2-GS-6137 Registry: Charlottetown Between: SUFIAN ZUHDI TAHA Plaintiff And: NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA Defendant Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Tracey L. Clements Written Submissions: Sufian Zuhdi Taha on his own behalf Pamela J. Williams, Q.C. solicitor for the defendant Place and Date of Written Submissions Summerside, Prince Edward Island June 21 and July 31, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island August 24, 2018





CIVIL PROCEDURE - Rule 2.1: General powers to stay or dismiss if frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process of the court The plaintiff Mr. Taha commenced an action against the National Bank of Canada, seeking general damages in the amount of $100 million and punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $246 billion. The statement of claim consists of 75 pages and 278 paragraphs. Mr. Taha, in subsequent written submissions, characterizes the action as "attempting to expose the fraudulent activities or rather the institutionalized fraud" of the National Bank and the entire banking sector. Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 2.1.01, the court, on its own initiative, may stay or dismiss a proceeding that is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The summary procedure in Rule 2.1 was triggered and both Mr. Taha and counsel for the defendant made written submissions. Upon review of the statement of claim and in consideration of the written submissions of the parties, the court concludes that this is one of the "clearest of cases" where the statement of claim should be struck on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process of the court. STATUTES CONSIDERED: Judicature Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. J-2.1; RULES CONSIDERED: Civil Procedure Rule 2.1 CASES CONSIDERED: Taha v. Government of P.E.I., 2018 PECA 18; Van Sluytman v. Muskoka (District Municipality) 2018 ONCA 32; Re Lang Michener et al. v. Fabian et al. 1987 CanLII 172 (ON SC); Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 (CanLII) TEXT CONSIDERED: Watson & McGowan: Ontario Civil Practice, 2018 (Carswell, 2018) Clements C.J.: A. INTRODUCTION [1] In April 2018 the plaintiff Sufian Zuhdi Taha ("Mr. Taha") commenced a statement of claim against the defendant, the National Bank of Canada ("National Bank" or "Bank"), consisting of 75 pages and 278 paragraphs. Mr. Taha seeks general damages in the amount of $100 million and punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $246 billion. The summary procedure in Civil Procedure Rule 2.1.01 has been triggered and the court is called upon to determine whether the statement of claim should be stayed or dismissed on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. B. ISSUES [2] The issue before me is whether the statement of claim is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court, such that the court should dismiss the statement of claim, in accordance with the summary procedure available under Rule 2.1.01. C. DECISION [3] The statement of claim consists of hyperbole, exaggeration, opinion, rhetoric, and scandalous allegations against the National Bank, and other entities including the Government of PEI and the Federal Government. This is one of the "clearest of cases" where it is appropriate to dismiss the statement of claim on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court pursuant to Rule 2.1.01. D. CHRONOLOGY/CONTEXT 1. Chronology of current matter [4] Given the required procedure set out in Rule 2.1.01, it is worthwhile to review the chronology. [5] The statement of claim was issued on April 13, 2018. The registrar brought the proceeding to the attention of the court on April 18, 2018. The court reviewed the pleading and initiated the summary procedure pursuant to Rule 2.1.01. By notice dated April 20, 2018 the registrar advised Mr. Taha that the court was considering making an order staying or dismissing the proceeding on the basis that it appeared on the face of the proceeding to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. The registrar invited Mr. Taha to make a written submission, within 15 days, and no more than ten pages. Mr. Taha requested and was granted extensions in which to file his submission and ultimately Mr. Taha filed written submissions on June 21, 2018 (consisting of 26 pages and 124 paragraphs). Both the notice to Mr. Taha and Mr. Taha's written submissions were provided to counsel for the defendant National Bank. The National Bank filed written submissions on July 31, 2018. 2. Background/Context [6] Mr. Taha provides some background in his written submissions filed June 21, 2018. In summary, Mr. Taha indicates that he purchased property in January and November 2008. In 2015 Mr. Taha filed a statement of claim against the Government of PEI (court file no. S2-GS-5902) wherein Mr. Taha "sought to abolish the immoral and prejudicial practice of taxing the poor of the Province of PEI" (Mr. Taha's written submissions, para. 11). I note that on motion by the Government, the statement of claim was struck. [7] Mr. Taha alleges that in March 2017 the Government of PEI "in retaliation" seized his properties. He further alleges that as a consequence of the seizure of the properties, the National Bank issued a statement of claim and requisition for garnishment in April 2017. The National Bank’s statement of claim (court file no. S1-GS- 27666) alleges that Mr. Taha defaulted under the terms of the mortgage, and in particular, failed to pay the real property taxes "with the said Property being sold at tax sale in March 2017". Mr. Taha filed a statement of defence and counterclaim. The National Bank’s motion for summary judgment is pending. [8] In October 2017 Mr. Taha filed a further statement of claim against the Government of PEI (court file number S2-GS-6080). At para. 17 of Mr. Taha's written submissions, he describes the claim as follows:





… seeking damages for the arbitrary seizure of the Plaintiff's two properties. Moreover, the Plaintiff sought, again, to abolish the prejudicial practice of taxing the poor and working class of the Province of PEI. Certainly, the regime of the extortionate taxation of the Government of PEI constitutes an existential threat to the Province of PEI and collectively the Nation for it entails repression and inequity.





[9] I note that in the statement of claim in S2-GS-6080 Mr. Taha also makes numerous references to the National Bank. [10] In November 2017 Mr. Taha filed a further statement of claim against the Government of PEI (court file number S2-GS-6090), "for Lack of Ombudsman in the Province of PEI" (Mr. Taha's written submissions, para. 18). [11] The Government requested the court dismiss both proceedings (S2-GS-6080 and S2-GS-6090), pursuant to Rule 2.1.01. The court exercised the summary procedure set out in Rule 2.1.01, and issued orders dismissing both statements of claim as being frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Mr. Taha appealed from the orders and the Government brought motions to quash the appeals. In the recent decision Taha v. Government of P.E.I., 2018 PECA 18 ("Taha v. P.E.I."), the Court of Appeal quashed Mr. Taha's appeals. [12] In April 2018 Mr. Taha filed a statement of claim against the National Bank (court file no. S2-GS-6137), the current matter before me. Mr. Taha "is attempting to expose the fraudulent activities or rather the institutionalized fraud of [the National Bank of Canada] and indeed the Banking Sector" (Mr. Taha’s written submissions, para.19). E. POSITION OF THE PARTIES 1. Mr. Taha [13] In Mr. Taha's written submissions, he provides some background information and refers to his other legal proceedings. However, to a large extent, his written submissions amount to a duplication of the contents of the statement of claim. In the conclusion portion of his written submissions, Mr. Taha states at para. 123:





123. The monopoly on the Supplies of Money by a private entity, namely the Banking Sector, including NBC [National Bank of Canada], is certainly illegitimate or illegal, and in stark violation of the postulates of the CONSTITUTION of the Land, and other applicable statutes thereof. Indeed, the function of Money Production and Printing or Issuance are exclusive rights of the sovereign government of the Nation. Therefore, the private Banking Sector, and NBC has absolutely no business thereof. The operation and activities of the Banking Sector, include NBC, are simply a scheme or fraud. Indeed, Canadians are scammed via the subtle or surreptitious operation of the private Banking Sector, long enough. Thus, the colossal wealth they amassed is simply the sweat of Canadians and nothing else. Indeed, it is a loot! Therefore, for justice to be served, the social harmony restored, and Allah’s wrath to be lifted, the venerable court is, kindly, asked to uphold justice and rule that such a loot is to return to the people of Canada, and the poor population.





[14] Mr. Taha continues at para. 124:





124. … I herein proved and exposed to the venerable court the deeds of the Banking Sector, including NBC, and the scale of their fraud or theft. I thereby kindly urge the venerable court to uphold its mandate and take appropriate steps as outlined in the litigation and grant the cited or sought exemplary and putative [sic] damages to the Canadian people. If not, then, the venerable is committed the judiciary to extinction along with the Nation, pursuant to Quranic verses cited supra.





2. Defendant [15] The position of the Bank is that the proceeding should be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 as being frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process of the court. The Bank refers in particular to three decisions: Van Sluytman v. Muskoka (District Municipality) 2018 ONCA 32 ("Muskoka"); Re Lang Michener et al. v. Fabian et al. 1987 CanLII 172 (ON SC) ("Lang Michener"); and, the recent Court of Appeal decision in Taha v. P.E.I. [16] The Bank refers in particular to paras. 15-17 of the Taha v. P.E.I. decision wherein the Court of Appeal describes Mr. Taha's statements of claim. The Bank argues that the current matter before the court is comparable to the statements of claim before the Court of Appeal in Taha v. P.E.I., including that the statement of claim before the court fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action; is inordinately long; is loaded with "hyperbole, exaggeration, opinion, rhetoric and scandalous allegations"; and, does not "permit effective or meaningful response within the parameters of our system of justice" (Taha v. P.E.I., paras. 16-17). F. ANALYSIS [17] Pursuant to Rule 2.1 the court has general powers to stay or dismiss a frivolous, vexatious or abusive proceeding, on its own initiative, pursuant to a summary procedure:





Rule 2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.





[18] The specific summary procedure is set out in Rule 2.1.01 (2)-(4), and contemplates written submissions. [19] Rule 2.1 is a relatively new Rule, having come into force on September 1, 2017. The Rule is the same as the Rule enacted in the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure (effective July 1, 2014). The Rule introduces sweeping changes to the procedures available for dealing with and disposing with, litigation that is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. There are a number of leading authorities interpreting and providing direction in relation to Rule 2.1, for example, the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Muskoka, as well as the leading Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 (CanLII) ("Scaduto"). The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal has also recently opined on, and given significant guidance and direction in relation to Rule 2.1, in Taha v. P.E.I. [20] In Scaduto, the court makes clear that Rule 2.1 is to be interpreted and applied "robustly", but should also be limited to the "clearest of cases":





[8] ... the rule should be interpreted and applied robustly so that a motion judge can effectively exercise his or her gatekeeping function to weed out litigation that is clearly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. However, the use of the rule should be limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process . [emphasis added]





[21] Muskoka likewise involved the Ontario Court of Appeal considering a number of Rule 2.1 orders which had been issued by the court below. The court notes the leading authorities including Scaduto, and concludes that each of the pleadings in question exhibited many of the hallmarks of pleadings in vexatious actions. The court concludes that in all cases in which the Rule 2.1.01 orders had been granted, the application judges had concluded that the plaintiff's pleading: 1) failed to advance a clear or legitimate cause of action; 2) was replete with the type of grandiose claims that characterize vexatious actions; and/or 3) in some instances, asserted one or more claims that were barred by the expiry of a governing limitation. (Muskoka, para 5). The Court of Appeal describes the plaintiff's proceedings as follows at para. 9:





[9] Simply put, the proceedings in question are facially frivolous and vexatious. The appellant's pleadings fail to contain any coherent narrative or a concise statement of the material facts in support of the wrongs sought to be alleged. Instead, they contain rambling discourse, impermissible attachments, grandiose complaints of injury and damages claims, and bald assertions that repeat similar, if not identical, allegations detailed in multiple other proceedings commenced by the appellant. [emphasis added]





[22] Ultimately, the court rejected the plaintiff's grounds of appeal and saw no basis to interfere with the Rule 2.1 orders. [23] In Muskoka, the court also points out that many of the salient characteristics of vexatious proceedings are described in Lang Michener. In Lang Michener Henry, J. extracts the following principles in relation to vexatious proceedings [pages 5-6]:





(a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding;





(b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious;





(c) vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights;





(d) it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings;





(e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action;





(f) the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious;





(g) the respondent's conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings.





[24] As noted, the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal has also recently opined on Rule 2.1 in Taha v. P.E.I. The court points out that the summary procedures envisioned in Rule 2.1 accomplish both minimizing expenses to a responding party and are likewise consistent with the principles of fairness and natural justice [para 5]:





[5] ... The Rule provides summary procedures for disposing of vexatious litigation that (a) minimize the expense to which the parties joined to vexatious litigation are put to resolve such litigation, and (b) are consistent with the principles of fairness and natural justice.





[25] The court notes that Watson & McGowan’s Ontario Civil Practice 2018 highlights Rule 2.1 at pp. 320-322. The Rule sets out a procedure for addressing two specific categories of litigation: 1) litigation involving litigants who have been declared vexatious pursuant to s. 65 of the Judicature Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. J-2.1; and, 2) litigation involving litigants who have not been declared vexatious. Consistent with other leading authorities, the court opines pointedly on the limited availability of Rule 2.1 [para. 5]:





[5] ...Rule 2.1 is available only: (1) in the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the litigation is apparent on the face of the pleading; and (2) if there is a basis in the pleading to support the attenuated process of Rule 2.1.





[26] Given that Mr. Taha has not been declared vexatious pursuant to s. 65 of the Judicature Act, the vexatious nature of the proceeding before me must be "patently obvious". As noted in Taha v. P.E.I. at para. 6:





[6] ...The requirement for patent obviousness makes it clear that the new summary procedure under Rule 2.1.01 is not an elective substitute for motions under other rules but is instead only available in the limited circumstances where the proceeding or motion is obviously vexatious on its face. [emphasis added]





[27] In Taha v. P.E.I. the court articulates the three-step process as contemplated in Rule 2.1. The first step involves bringing to the attention of the court a proceeding which potentially falls within the scope of the Rule. Either the registrar or the defendant may bring the proceeding to the court's attention. The Court of Appeal makes clear however that only the court, and neither the registrar nor the party, has the power to initiate the actual summary procedure. The second step involves the court reviewing the pleading to determine whether the proceeding appears vexatious "on its face" and likewise involves the court’s determination as to whether to initiate the summary procedure. Step three involves the exercise of the summary procedure itself. Unless the court orders otherwise, the procedure follows the sequence set out in Rule 2.1.01 (3). This procedure involves the registrar inviting the plaintiff to make written submissions, of not more than ten pages. As noted by the Court of Appeal, this step has the effect of shifting the onus to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the proceeding should not be dismissed. In addition, after the plaintiff has made written submissions, the court may direct that the defendant likewise be given an opportunity to provide its own response of not more than ten pages. [28] As noted, Mr. Taha's statement of claim consists of 75 pages and 278 paragraphs. In Mr. Taha's written submissions, he characterizes the statement of claim as "attempting to expose the fraudulent activities or rather the institutionalized fraud" of the National Bank of Canada as well as the "Banking Sector". It is difficult if not impossible to summarize the statement of claim in any coherent or logical way. However, it is worthwhile to highlight some of the statements and allegations as contained in the statement of claim, including against not only the National Bank, but also legal counsel for the National Bank, the Government of PEI, and the Federal Government. [29] In para. 1, Mr. Taha seeks $100 million in general damages as well as $246 billion in punitive and exemplary damages. At para. 265 Mr. Taha requests that the court compel the National Bank to return the "loot" to the Canadian public:





265. The Plaintiff pleads and calls upon the Banking Sector to return the loot to the public and repent! In particular, the Defendant. In fact, the loot of the Defendant alone is estimated to be $246 billion in total. The Plaintiff pleads, accordingly, that he seeks a court order to compel the Defendant to return the loot to the Canadian public and people in PEI as a reparation or reimbursement for the endured bondage and enslavement. Moreover, for the fact that it is Money that clearly amassed from the sweat of the masses and Canadians. [emphasis added]





[30] Paragraph 5 of the statement of claim provides:





5. The Banking Sector and the Defendant have ridiculously failed to understand the notion of Money, namely of being a powerful instrument of wealth augmentation and generation. Money Printing and Production in legitimate hands, certainly, would lead to prosperity, wealth and affluence. However, the Banking Sector, including the Defendant through their Monopoly or Hegemony or rather Piracy of Money Printing and Production, led the country to the devastating ills of excessive taxation, indigence, scarcity, distress, destitution and the pervasive greed, that haunt governments, corporations and individuals alike. Explicitly, the notion of extortionate and outrageous taxation, and the devastation, it brought on the citizenry, and the inferiority of the human element, inter alia. [emphasis added]





[31] And at para. 25:





25. Allah wants a Vicegerent on earth! Indeed, a great honour for human kind! The implications of such a revelation are indeed momentous. Any interruption in violation of such harmony are certain to spell disaster. Definitely, Allah’s Standing Orders are then triggered and activated, bashing and smashing such violators, portrayed on corrupt judiciary, governments, despots, tyrants, societies, people, individuals, settlements, towns, nations and above all, the fraudulent Banking Sector, including the Defendant hence, ("the Banking Sector"), in their attempts to exploit their fellow human beings in defiance of Allah's above-stated proclamation.





[32] And at paras. 32 and 33:





32. The Plaintiff pleads that objective and unprejudiced observations reveal the painful truth. The misuse, the institutionalized fraud, the subjugation, the marginalization, the exploitation, and the mass enslavement of the people of Canada by the Banking Sectors, including the Defendant, the Federal Government, Government of PEI , and the few elite, acting individually or collectively had reduced this country, and in particular this locality to a mere skeleton, suffering slow and agonizing death. [emphasis added]





33. Lack of Political Diversity, Scorching or Extortionate Taxation, Lack of Ombudsman, Lack of Accountability, Inferior Infrastructure, Inferior Services, Inferior Health Care, Dying out Population, High Rate of Cancer Cases, Dysfunctional Public Schools, Negative Birth-rate, High Ratio of Older Population or Old Age, the Manifest Exodus and the prevalent Absurd Norms , all of which are manfestations of the noted pathetic conditions and the rampant poverty. A clear sign of a dying out community, which is consistent with the revelation of the versus, [Quran 24:55], [Quran 11:57], [Quran 6:133], and [Quran 7:74], cited above. More so, an example of Allah’s Standing Orders in action. [emphasis added]





[33] And at para. 66:





66. The Plaintiff further pleads that the rampant manifestations of Poverty, Destitution, Unemployment, High Cost of Living, in particular, High Cost of Medications, High Cost of Housing, and High Cost of Dental Care, along with Prejudice, Preconception, Predisposition, Bigotry, Chauvinism, Discrimination, Bias, Racism, Class, Exploitation, and Monopolies, among others, in this Province and Nation are displays of Inequity, Injustice, Ignorance, Arrogance, Cynicism, Seclusion, and Isolation.





[34] At para. 88 Mr. Taha takes issue with the laws:





88. The Plaintiff pleads and wishes to assert before the venerable court that, currently, we have laws, in most parts that are detrimental, and malicious. They, mercilessly, destroy the livelihood of people and destroy communities. The similitude of cancer, as they slowly destroy the essence of the Nation - the illegitimate seizure of the Plaintiff’s two properties, and the subsequent action of the Defendant, among many others, are examples of such repression, whereby the so-called laws were employed and misused. [emphasis added]





[35] At para. 116 Mr. Taha takes issue with the "Establishment" in the context of the curriculum in the public school system:





116. However, when the Establishment, headed by the Money cartel, via the Federal and Provincial Governments, and the enforcing power of the courts, blatantly, introduces outdated curriculum and falsehoods via the public school system, inter alia, and brands them as valid and legitimate . Consequently, they become dominant, and as acceptable axioms, or truism, then a serious flaw is introduced in the order and fabric of the society. Explicitly, the theory of evolution and confusing it with mutation thus intentionally, the Establishment is leading the youth of this country into the essence of atheism and nonbelief. Thus, escorting them to the dangerous pits of immorality and debauchery, something, which commands and leads to triviality in disposition and aspirations. Consequently, the society malfunctions. Regrettably, in Canada and specifically in the Province of PEI, objective observation of the ongoing confirms such assessment and facts. [emphasis added]





[36] At para. 117 Mr. Taha takes further issue with the "Establishment":





117. For example, when the Establishment, headed by the Money Monopoly - via the Federal and Provincial Governments, and the enforcing power of the courts - legalizes illicit drugs , when the Establishment legitimates homosexuality , when the Establishment keeps a blind eye on the ignorance of farmers when polluting the rivers, the soil and groundwater with toxins causing cancer to population, when the Establishment adopts the notion of family breakdown , when the Establishment destroys the institution of marriage , when Establishment legitimates the slaughter of innocents through participation in acts of war and aggression under false pretexts, - Iraqi, Afghani and Syrian war scenarios, among others - when the Establishment institutionalizes mass poverty and mass debt , when the Establishment institutionalizes fraud , when the Establishment institutionalizes corruption, nepotism, embezzlement or extortion , - the extortionate regime of taxation that in place, and the kind of repression I and others underwent, when the Establishment institutionalizes inferiority in public services , when the Establishment institutionalizes inferiority in medical care services , and when the Establishment sanctions (institutionalizes) the absence of accountability and ombudsman , vital for the survival of any society. [emphasis added]





[37] Mr. Taha continues at paras. 270 and 271:





270. The Plaintiff pleads that the Banking Sector and the Defendant are causing havoc in the country via their fraudulent activities, which, I reiterate, caused mass debt, leading to the pervasive poverty and distress. Indeed, this can only be attributed to the flawed or rather corrupt mindset of those responsible. How could anyone justify profiting from conducting activities that for all practical purposes amount to the enslavement of your own people!





271. The Defendant and the Defendant’s solicitor are mistaken, in fact, delusional to think that they can get away with such blatant repression that they are conducting against their fellow human beings and citizens. Indeed, it is ridiculous to think that they can get away with such a hideous crime again [sic] humanity, namely the enslavement of a people via forcing it into debt and poverty. Ironically, such activities in fact are reciprocal, for they are certain to pay a heavy price in this life and the Hereafter pursuant to applicable verses.





[38] Mr. Taha's statement of claim also contains a number of comments directed at defendant's counsel. At para. 39 Mr. Taha "wishes to caution” the defendant's solicitor that “acting as the advocate” of the defendant qualifies counsel "to become guilty of all the fraudulent activities of the Banking Sector, and the Defendant". Mr. Taha states that, "via such deeds" counsel has "opened, pursuant to many cited verses, the gates of misery upon herself". Mr. Taha further states that the defendant and the defendant's solicitor are "on a collision course with the robust Universal Justice, and Allah's Standing Orders…" [39] At para. 40 Mr. Taha states defendant's counsel "is to suffer the type of repression that I, my wife, and the rest of the population are encountering". At para.127 Mr. Taha that defendant's counsel is "spreading and perpetuating falsehood and mischief"; she is "shutting down her conscience and intellect"; and, "espousing, and championing the Wrong and Evils of the Defendant". At para. 128 Mr. Taha states defendant's counsel is "guilty of conspiring and colluding with the Defendant" and at para. 130 Mr. Taha asks "Allah to curse the party that colludes and conspires with the tenuous forces of evil and mischief". At para. 151 Mr. Taha states that acting as an advocate or a proxy of the defendant would "assure" defendant's counsel "poverty and miserable life for eon to come". [40] I note the description of the statements of claim reviewed by the Court of Appeal in Taha v. P.E.I., at paras. 16 and 17:





[16] …The statements of claim are so devoid of merit or substance that the vexatious nature of the proceedings is patently obvious on their face. Inordinately long, respectively 65 pages and 35 pages, they do not contain any justiciable claim or reasonable cause of action. The claims are loaded with hyperbole, exaggeration, opinion, rhetoric and scandalous allegations relating to Government's "extortionate regime of taxation on the masses" and the failure of Government to "appoint an Ombudsman". To the extent they refer to the Government's tax sale of Mr. Taha's properties, they do not assert any actionable wrongdoing by Government. The claims are conclusory, and do not assert material facts. The kind of relief Mr. Taha claims is not within the bailiwick or competence of our courts of justice.





[17] Because the statements of claim do not deal with identifiable or known causes of action, they do not permit effective or meaningful response within the parameters of our system of justice...





[41] These descriptions are likewise applicable to the statement of claim before me. [42] I am likewise reminded of the description of the proceeding before the Ontario Court of Appeal in Muskoka as described at para. 9:





[9] Simply put, the proceedings in question are facially frivolous and vexatious. The appellant's pleadings fail to contain any coherent narrative or a concise statement of the material facts in support of the wrongs sought to be alleged. Instead, they contain rambling discourse, impermissible attachments, grandiose complaints of injury and damages claims, and bald assertions...



