R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 as being frivolous, vexatious or otherwise
an abuse of the process of the court.
A. The Factual Context
 The respondent Krylov and Company represented the
appellant in his claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle
accident. The respondent Devry Smith Frank LLP represented
the defendant in that action.
 The appellant subsequently sued both respondents in the
action that is the subject matter of the rule 2.1.01 dismissal. The
statement of claim in this action noted:
On or about March 31, 2014 that [personal injury] action was settled and
Krylov provided Khan with a cheque in the amount of $58,137.95.
Krylov told Khan that the total settlement amount was $82,500.00.
 However, the statement of claim also asserted the following:
Khan believes the actual settlement was higher than the alleged $82,500.00
and in the $800,000.00 range as the associate from Krylov assured him of
Khan believes both defendants received a larger compensation but misappropriated the funds and provided a smaller settlement to Khan.
 As the motion judge noted:
At the heart of the action as asserted by the plaintiff in the statement of claim
is the allegation that both defendant law firms defrauded the plaintiff by misappropriating settlement funds and forging his name to a final release or having him sign such a release without his knowledge of its contents.
B. The Governing Principles
 The law concerning rule 2.1 is new and evolving. It was
largely summarized in Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada,
 O.J. No. 5692, 2015 ONCA 733, 343 O.A.C. 87, at paras.
7-9, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused  S.C.C.A. No. 488.
This court accepted the approach taken by Myers J. in a series of
cases including Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance
Board),  O.J. No. 5307, 2014 ONSC 6497, 37 C.L.R. (4th)
7 (S.C.J.) (“Gao (No. 2)”) and Raji v. Borden Ladner and Gervais
LLP,  O.J. No. 307, 2015 ONSC 801 (S.C.J.). The court
noted in Scaduto that “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”
(at para. 8).
 Justice Myers provided an important caution, at para. 18
of Gao (No. 2):