Case information

Charter of Rights — Right to equality — Civil procedure — Appeals — Applicant’s appeal dismissed for delay and action dismissed — Whether proceedings conducted on behalf of or against the Applicant without the appointment of litigation guardian were irregular and void over his rights — Whether applicant was denied equality under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on his mental or physical disability — Whether applicant’s rights were infringed pursuant to s. 15 of the Charter — Whether proceedings conducted in the courts below, were in denial of fair trial, non-application of stare decisis and denial of access to justice to the applicant and that brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Home Trust Company and 2256157 Ontario Ltd. both loaned funds to the applicant, Mr. Fazl, secured by mortgages on two residential properties that he owned. When Mr. Fazl defaulted, power of sale proceedings were commenced against him. Mr. Fazl unsuccessfully defended the actions and his counterclaims were dismissed in summary judgment proceedings. Mr. Fazl commenced the within action in October, 2018. The four respondents moved for summary judgment on the basis of res judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process in December, 2018. At a case conference held in April 2019, Mr. Fazl was required to file his materials by June 21, 2019. This he failed to do. A further case conference was held in July 2019 and Mr. Fazl was allowed until September 20, 2019 to file his motion materials. A hearing date was set for December 19, 2019. Mr. Fazl did not file his materials for the deadline date imposed by the court and had not filed his documents by the hearing date. The court refused his request for an adjournment. Summary judgment was granted in favour of all four respondents and Mr. Fazl’s claims were dismissed. Subsequently, Mr. Fazl’s appeal from that order was dismissed for delay. His application to set aside that order was dismissed. His motions for an adjournment and for a review were dismissed by a full panel of the Court of Appeal.