3 total
Judicial review and motion to set aside dismissed; applicant failed to exhaust statutory review process.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (now LECA) denying his request for a review of a police investigation into his complaints of excessive force during encampment clearings.
The applicant also moved to set aside a single judge's order quashing his judicial review application against the Toronto Police Service.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge correctly applied the 'plain and obvious' test and properly concluded that the applicant had to exhaust the statutory review process under section 71 of the Police Services Act before seeking judicial review.
The Court also dismissed the judicial review application against LECA, holding that the Director's decision to deny the late request for review was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness.
Motion to quash judicial review granted; applicant failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Police Services Act.
The applicant filed a complaint regarding police conduct during encampment clearings.
After the Toronto Police Service investigated and substantiated only one minor allegation, the applicant sought judicial review of the investigation's adequacy.
The Toronto Police Service brought a motion to quash the application.
The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the application was bound to fail because the applicant had not exhausted the mandatory administrative review process under section 71 of the Police Services Act, which requires seeking a review by the OIPRD before applying for judicial review.
Motion to add defendants dismissed as statute-barred due to plaintiffs' failure to exercise reasonable diligence.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to add several parties, including Watts and Gayton, as defendants in an action arising from a fatal scalding incident in a retirement home bathtub.
Watts and Gayton opposed the motion, arguing the limitation period had expired and they would suffer non-compensable prejudice because the plumbing apparatus was no longer available for inspection.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the identities of the proposed defendants within the limitation period, as they could have obtained this information by requiring timely delivery of the original defendants' statements of defence.
The motion to add Watts and Gayton was dismissed.
