An Ontario court has dismissed an employee’s attempt to challenge a labour relations board decision after he waited nearly four years to seek judicial review, despite filing more than a dozen other court cases during the same period.
The Superior Court of Justice ruled that A.M.’s motion for an extension of time to judicially review a 2021 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision was “frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.”
Background of the case
A.M. had filed a complaint with the OLRB alleging that CUPE Local 3906 failed in its duty to fairly represent him during his employment dispute with McMaster University. However, the labour board dismissed his complaint in June 2021 as premature because a grievance arbitration was still ongoing.
The OLRB noted that “a grievance arbitration is currently ongoing and being held in abeyance pending a criminal proceedings, which is common when these kinds of circumstances arise.”
When A.M. sought reconsideration, the board dismissed that request but clarified that “if the applicant continues to believe that he was not fairly represented contrary to section 74 of the Act once the grievance process has concluded, he can file a fresh application at that time.”
Extension request and medical claims
Under Ontario’s Judicial Review Procedure Act, applications must be filed within 30 days of the decision being challenged. A.M. didn’t seek judicial review until July 2024 — three years after the deadline.
Initially, A.M. claimed he couldn’t file within the required timeframe “due to post-traumatic stress disorder.” He submitted a medical letter from Dr. Syed describing his conditions as “Major Depressive Disorder, ASD – Asperger’s subtype, PTSD and Persistent Somatic Symptom Disorder (chronic pain)” that “started and were perpetuated several years earlier.”
However, the court noted a significant inconsistency in A.M.’s explanation for the delay. The judge observed that “between the date when an application for judicial review of the OLRB 2021 Decision was due in July 2021, and the motion for an extension of time to bring an application in July 2024, the moving party commenced at least twelve other proceedings in the Divisional Court and proceedings in other courts.”
The ruling stated: “It is apparent that his medical conditions did not prevent him from commencing court proceedings.”
Conspiracy allegations
A.M.’s submissions took an unusual turn when he began alleging interference by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). He claimed that if the judge didn’t accept his medical explanations, “then I believe that csis intervenes in the juridical administration.”
He also disputed communications from his doctor’s office and suggested that “if there is an impediment to moving forward, CSIS is involved.”
The court found “no basis upon which to conclude that CSIS had any role in the delay, the process leading up to the motion for an extension of time or the subsequent proceedings in this Court.”
Court’s analysis
The court applied Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The judge emphasized this rule “should only be used for ‘the clearest of cases'” but determined this met that standard.
For extensions of time under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, courts must be satisfied “there are apparent grounds for relief and that no substantial prejudice or hardship will result to any person affected by reason of the delay.”
The court found A.M. failed to meet this test on multiple grounds:
Lack of merit in proposed challenge
The judge determined there were no “apparent grounds for relief” for challenging the OLRB decision. The labour board’s ruling was based solely on timing — that A.M.’s complaint was premature while the grievance arbitration remained ongoing.
“The moving party had an opportunity to make submissions to the OLRB at the time and did not do so,” the court noted. The OLRB had specifically invited A.M. to explain why his application wasn’t premature, but he failed to respond.
The court concluded: “There are plainly no apparent grounds to conclude that a judicial review after the three-year delay would give rise to a useful remedy.”
Scope limitations
While acknowledging that A.M. “believes he has been wronged by McMaster, CUPE and potentially others as well,” the court emphasized the narrow scope of the proposed judicial review. Many issues A.M. raised and remedies he sought were “beyond the scope of the proposed judicial review.”
Accommodations provided
Throughout the proceedings, the court made several accommodations for A.M.’s stated medical conditions, including:
- Extended deadlines for filing materials
- Additional time to obtain medication
- Extra pages for submissions (20 instead of the usual 10)
- Extended response periods (30 days instead of 15)
Despite these accommodations and multiple opportunities to provide updated medical documentation, A.M. failed to submit additional medical evidence supporting his claims.
Pattern of litigation
The ruling also reveals A.M.’s extensive history of court filings. The judge noted he had “commenced over fifteen proceedings” in the Divisional Court between July 2021 and his motion in 2024, undermining his claim that medical conditions prevented him from accessing the courts.
This pattern of litigation, combined with the weak merits of his proposed judicial review and the significant delay without adequate explanation, led the court to dismiss the proceeding entirely under Rule 2.1.
For more information, see Mohammad v. OLRB and McMaster University, 2025 ONSC 2224 (CanLII).
