Emtiaz Bala

The Durham Regional Police Service (Applicant) sought to prohibit the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (Commission) from disclosing two workplace investigation reports (Shearer Reports), claiming they were privileged.

The Commission, along with the Durham Regional Police Service Association (Intervenor), opposed these restrictions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Shearer Report 1 was not privileged, and while Shearer Report 2's privilege was uncertain (as it was not produced for review), any privilege over either report had been waived or lost due to prior disclosures.

The court ordered the reports to be produced to the Commission without restriction, emphasizing the public interest in disclosure to protect employees from harassment and a toxic workplace, and noting the Commission's statutory obligations of confidentiality.

This endorsement from a case conference addressed procedural issues concerning examinations for discovery scheduled for a three-week period.

Key issues included confirming the discovery schedule for defendants, determining the order of examination between co-plaintiffs, and allocating discovery costs.

The court set the discovery schedule, ordered one plaintiff's counsel to examine witnesses first due to preparedness, and denied a request for an advance list of questions.

Costs were apportioned 3/4 to one plaintiff's clients and 1/4 to the self-represented plaintiff.

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing her application for mandamus and certiorari challenging the Director of the Special Investigations Unit's decision not to lay criminal charges against police officers involved in a shooting incident.

The application judge had dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, finding it should be heard by the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act rather than by a single Superior Court judge under the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that applications involving criminal matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Criminal Code, not provincial legislation, and must be heard by a single Superior Court judge under the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The applicant, an innocent bystander injured during a police shooting, sought an order of mandamus to compel the Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to conduct a proper investigation and lay charges against the officers.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction, arguing the matter should be heard by the Divisional Court.

The Superior Court of Justice held that because the SIU is a creation of a provincial statute (the Police Services Act), the application must proceed by way of judicial review before the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant, Susan Zreik, brought two applications: one seeking extraordinary remedies (mandamus and certiorari) and declaratory relief against the SIU Director, and another raising constitutional issues involving the Attorney General of Canada.

This endorsement addresses preliminary jurisdictional arguments, with the Attorney General of Ontario and the SIU Director contending the Divisional Court is the proper forum for Application #1, and the Attorney General of Canada disputing its status as a party in Application #2.

The court adjourned the jurisdictional arguments to a case management meeting, directing the parties to file supplementary materials addressing compliance with criminal rules for extraordinary remedies and jurisdictional challenges for constitutional issues.

Formerly convicted individuals brought a motion to set aside a Registrar’s administrative dismissal under Rule 48 after their civil actions for malicious prosecution and wrongful conviction had been dismissed for delay.

The court applied the four-factor framework from Reid v Dow Corning Corp, examining explanation for litigation delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay adequately explained, largely attributable to document production issues and changes in counsel, and concluded that counsel’s failure to diarize the set-down date constituted inadvertence rather than deliberate delay.

The defendants failed to establish actual prejudice, despite the age of the underlying events.

Applying a contextual approach and considering amendments to Rule 48.14, the court held that justice required permitting the plaintiffs to proceed.

Two Ottawa police officers were charged with assault following an SIU investigation and were issued summonses to attend SIU headquarters in Mississauga for fingerprinting.

The officers brought an application for certiorari to quash the summonses, arguing that the Crown's subsequent election to proceed summarily invalidated the summonses, that the travel requirement breached procedural fairness, and that it constituted an unreasonable search under section 8 of the Charter.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown's election did not retroactively invalidate the Justice of the Peace's jurisdiction, the travel requirement was a reasonable policy to ensure SIU independence and operational readiness, and the inconvenience of travel did not render the fingerprinting an unreasonable search.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, and related torts arising from withdrawn murder charges.

The Crown defendants moved under Rule 21.01 to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, as an abuse of process.

The court held that witness immunity protected the police officers for statements connected to prior proceedings and that the officers neither initiated the prosecution nor owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

The pleadings contained bald allegations of malice and collusion without the material facts required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also found the claim barred by a prior consent dismissal involving the Crown and concluded that allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant, an unrepresented accused charged with robbery, aggravated assault, and uttering threats, sought the appointment of amicus curiae to represent his interests at a preliminary inquiry.

The applicant's Legal Aid certificate was denied after his previous counsel withdrew due to a conflict of interest.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to appoint amicus curiae and whether such an appointment was necessary to prevent a failure of justice.

The court found that the Ontario Court of Justice has jurisdiction to appoint amicus curiae in limited circumstances where necessary to prevent a failure of justice, and that the imminent preliminary inquiry with one co-accused in custody for eight months necessitated the appointment.

The court appointed counsel as amicus curiae at a rate of $180 per hour.