Amstar (2025 ONCA 493) and Ingarra (2026 ONCA 139): When Jurisdiction Becomes "Frivolous"

Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits summary dismissal only when a proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process. In recent decisions, the Court of Appeal has invoked this rule to dispose of filings made in the wrong forum. Examination of the citation chain reveals a progressive expansion of the language used to support those dispositions.

The Point of Departure: Chowdhury

The sequence begins with Chowdhury v. Unity Health Toronto, 2025 ONCA 90. A panel considered a motion for leave to appeal that it determined fell outside its jurisdiction. At para. 4, the court stated:

[4] The clear lack of jurisdiction is sufficient to render the motion for leave to appeal an abuse of process.

The decision did not characterize the motion as "frivolous" or "vexatious." The absence of jurisdiction was treated as sufficient, in itself, to establish an abuse of process under the rule.

The Expansion of the Language: Amstar and the Ncube Citation

In Amstar Pool ILP v. Tweneboa-Kodua, 2025 ONCA 493, the Court again addressed a motion for leave to appeal filed in the wrong forum. At para. 8 the panel stated:

[8] Given the clear lack of jurisdiction, the motion for leave to appeal is frivolous and constitutes an abuse of process: Ncube v. Hassen, 2022 ONCA 840, at para. 15; Chowdhury v. Unity Health Toronto, 2025 ONCA 90, at para. 4.

The addition of the word "frivolous" is supported by a citation to Ncube. Ncube was a single-judge chambers decision on a motion for a stay pending appeal. In that context, the word "frivolous" was used in assessing the "serious issue" branch of the RJR-MacDonald test. The chambers judge also recorded, at para. 16, that a single judge of the Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Amstar therefore took the word "frivolous" from a limited stay-motion analysis and applied it, together with the Chowdhury jurisdictional holding, to support a full Rule 2.1 dismissal of a motion for leave.

Entrenchment: Ingarra

In Ingarra v. Cartel & Bui LLP, 2026 ONCA 139, the expanded formulation appears as established authority. At para. 5 the panel stated:

[5] As this court lacks jurisdiction, the appeal is frivolous and constitutes an abuse of process: Amstar Pool ILP v. Tweneboa-Kodua, 2025 ONCA 493, at para. 8.

The Merit Paradox

The addition of the word "frivolous" to a pure jurisdictional finding creates a structural difficulty.

In Canadian common law, a pleading is frivolous when it discloses no reasonable legal foundation and has no prospect of success. That determination requires an assessment of the substance of the claim.

Jurisdiction, by contrast, is a threshold question of statutory competence. A proceeding may possess substantive merit yet be filed in the incorrect court. A navigational error does not, by itself, extinguish the underlying legal foundation of the claim.

The resulting sequence is as follows:

1. A finding that a proceeding is frivolous requires an evaluation of its merits.
2. An evaluation of merits requires subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. A court that has determined it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction is, on its own finding, without authority to evaluate the merits.
4. A court that lacks jurisdiction therefore cannot coherently make a finding that the proceeding is "frivolous."

The Stare Decisis Conflict

The treatment of a jurisdictional defect as an automatic abuse of process under Rule 2.1 also stands in tension with earlier panel authority.

In Collins v. Ontario, 2017 ONCA 317, the Court relied on Simpson v. The Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 806, and stated:

[19] ... Absence of merit on its own, even assuming such absence, is not sufficient to justify dismissal under r. 2.1. Simpson, at para. 43, makes it clear that a r. 2.1 request is not a substitute for a motion to quash and filing the appropriate materials. The rule does not replace the bringing of a motion to quash an appeal for want of jurisdiction or for lack of merit.

Simpson and Collins remain binding panel authorities on the proper limits of Rule 2.1. Chowdhury treated lack of jurisdiction as sufficient for summary dismissal under the rule. Amstar expanded the language by importing the term "frivolous" from a single-judge stay decision. Ingarra adopted that expanded formulation.

The result is a line of authority that applies Rule 2.1 to pure jurisdictional defects in a manner that the Court's own earlier panel decisions expressly limited.

Access the consolidated public records, dockets, and procedural analyses associated with this matter below.

Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)

• Formatted SCC Docket 42381
• Bulletin of Proceedings (Official)
• Official SCC Docket 42381

1. Case Overviews & Timelines

• Case Overview: Supreme Court of Canada Docket 42381, 2026 ONCA 246 and 2.1B (2025 ONCA 90)
• History of the Jurisdictional Defect in Chowdhury (2025 ONCA 90): Rule 2.1 Applied Twice
• Wrong-Forum and “Abuse of Process”: Amstar (2025 ONCA 493) and Bernard Property (2019 ONCA 830)
• “Or” vs. “Or Otherwise”: Scaduto (2015 ONCA 733), Raji (2015 ONSC 801), and the Language of Rule 2.1.01

2. Constitutional Limits & Delegated Authority

• Jurisprudence of the Administrative Reverse Onus: Rule 2.1 vs. Established Precedent
• Rule 2.1, Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and the Administrative Reverse Onus
• Rule 2.1 and the Automatic Stay: A Procedural Tension with Rule 2.01
• O. Reg. 322/24: Form 2.1A and the 2024 Amendments to Rule 2.1
• The Reverse Onus of Rule 2.1: The Practical Effect of the Automatic Stay in O. Reg. 322/24
• Form 2.1B and the Reverse Onus: Colourability and the Limits of Delegated Authority

4. Jurisdiction, Forum & Procedural Mechanics

• Rule 2.1.01 and Jurisdiction: Simpson (2016 ONCA 806), Collins (2017 ONCA 317) vs. Chowdhury
• Jurisdiction and the Initiation of Rule 2.1 Dismissals
• Rule 21.01 vs. Rule 2.1.01: "A Judge" vs. "The Court"
• Case Conference and Management: Scheduling as Adjudication (2.1B)
• Jurisdictional Contrast: Alberta, Quebec, and British Columbia

5. Family Rule 1.4 & Rule 2.1

• Rule 1.4, Rule 2.1 and the Rules of Procedure: Can Ontario's Rules Committees Override the Common Law?
• O. Reg. 310/26 and Family Rule 1.4: The Shifting Framework of Summary Dismissals

Statutory References

• Appendix: Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Statutory Reference via Ontario e-Laws