Rule 2.1.01 and Jurisdiction: Chowdhury vs. Collins

From Chowdhury v. Unity Health Toronto, 2025 ONCA 90, para. 4:

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

From Collins v. Ontario, 2017 ONCA 317, para. 19:

[19] Ontario and Canada clearly take the view that Ms. Collins’ appeals lack merit. 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. However, it does allow for a speedy process for disposing of proceedings and motions that on their face are frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.

Collins v. Ontario, 2017 ONCA 317, established the procedural boundary of the Court. Grounded in Simpson v. The Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 806, the ruling prohibits using Rule 2.1 as a shortcut to avoid bringing a formal motion to quash for want of jurisdiction.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, Collins remains the binding precedent on the limits of this rule. Chowdhury arrived at the opposite conclusion by allowing a jurisdictional dismissal under Rule 2.1, but the later panel did not overrule Collins—or cite it.

Consequently, any court utilizing para. 4 of Chowdhury to summarily dismiss a matter for lack of jurisdiction remains bound by Collins, which demands that jurisdictional challenges be addressed through a proper motion to quash.

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

Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)

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