HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Ng

Applicant

-and-

Chief of Toronto Police Service, Office of the Independent Police Review Director, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the

Ministry of the Attorney General, College Park Courts

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: December 2, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1628

Indexed as: Ng v. Chief of Toronto Police Service

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michael Ng, Applicant

Self-represented

Office of the Independent Police Review Director, Respondent

Lynette D’Souza, Counsel

1The applicant has requested a reconsideration of Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 1409. One of the findings in that Interim Decision was that the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity applies to the decisions made by a Crown Attorney with respect to charges laid against the applicant and the Application as against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, College Park Courts was dismissed on that basis.

2The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), one of the respondents to the Application, has requested a correction to the Interim Decision.

The applicant’s request for reconsideration

3The Interim Decision noted at paragraphs 6-9:

In Inward v. Toronto (City), 2010 HRTO 2127, the Tribunal stated, at paragraph 12:

[U]nless there are allegations of a Code violation in which the prosecutor had “a motive that involved an abuse or perversion of the system of criminal justice for ends it was not designed to serve” (Nelles at p. 199), prosecutorial immunity applies.

In this case, the applicant alleges that the conduct or decisions of the prosecutor was motivated by discriminatory views and opinions about men and suggests that the prosecutor should therefore not be protected by immunity.

In the present case, the applicant was charged with offences by the police in March. According to the respondent, the Crown Attorney to whom the allegations relate became involved in the applicant’s case on November 12, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Crown Attorney determined that the charges should be dropped because there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction.

The conduct on the part of the Crown in this case does not constitute the sort of circumstances that the Supreme Court has identified as prosecutorial conduct that would justify not giving immunity to the actions of a Crown Attorney for decisions made in the course of her duties.

4In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states that he does not agree that the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity applies because he believes that there is evidence that the Crown Attorney in his case did pervert the course of justice because of a “cover-up” of a police video.

[5] Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

26.5 A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that

(a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

(b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

(c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

(d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

6The fact that the applicant does not agree with the finding in the Interim Decision regarding the application of the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity is not a basis to reconsider the Interim Decision. The available evidence indicates that the Crown Attorney’s involvement in the applicant’s case was brief and concluded with a decision to drop any charges against him.

The request for correction by the OIPRD

7The Interim Decision stated at paragraph 11:

The allegations concerning the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) relate to the decision by the OIPRD to not investigate complaints the applicant made against the Toronto Police Service. The OIPRD filed a Response to the Application, denying that it discriminated against the applicant. It also filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, asking that the Application against it be dismissed because the Application is an attempt to have this Tribunal review the decisions of the OIPRD. The OIPRD submits that the Application against it is a collateral attack on its decisions and that the appropriate remedy for the applicant is to seek a judicial review rather than bringing this Application.

8In a letter dated November 4, 2015, the OIPRD correctly notes that it did not file a separate Request for Order During Proceedings and that the request for dismissal was only made in the Response.

9This correction is noted. I do not think that it warrants correcting the Interim Decision itself.

Decision

[10] The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.