Morvarid Shojaei

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) Director, which confirmed the Guelph Chief of Police's finding that the applicant's police misconduct allegations were unsubstantiated.

The applicant had alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and retaliation during an incident where he was tasered and arrested for assault with a weapon.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Director's decision was internally coherent, justified by the evidence, and consistent with the applicable legal framework.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director, which confirmed that his complaints of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct against a police officer were unsubstantiated.

The Divisional Court found the Director's decision unreasonable because it relied on a fundamental misapprehension of evidence regarding the timeline of the alleged assault and failed to address the applicant's central argument that video evidence proved the officer had lied.

The application was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Complaints Director for further review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) confirming the London Police Service Chief's dismissal of his police misconduct complaint.

The applicant had complained that an officer acted improperly by refusing to investigate his former partner for child abduction and by directing him to leave the police station.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the officer had properly exercised his discretion, as the children were not missing but residing with their mother pursuant to a family court order.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, Alex Martinez, brought a motion for a panel review of a single judge's dismissal of his motion for leave to appeal.

The respondent, Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), sought to dismiss the review motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's decision and noting the applicant's materials contained scurrilous insults.

The Review Motion was dismissed.

The public complainants appealed the penalty imposed on a police officer found guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct in relation to the sudden death investigation of an Indigenous man.

The Hearing Officer had ordered an 18-month demotion and cultural competency training.

The complainants argued the officer should be dismissed, citing the public interest, the importance of reconciliation, and region-specific demands regarding anti-Indigenous racism.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed all relevant factors, including the public interest and reconciliation, and did not err in concluding that dismissal was not warranted.

The Appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from his role as the lead investigator into the sudden death of an Indigenous man, where he prematurely concluded the death was non-criminal and failed to conduct a basic investigation.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable, including the finding that the Appellant's deficient investigation was rooted in racial bias and stereotypes.

The appeal was dismissed and the findings and penalty were confirmed.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who was found guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct regarding his investigation into the sudden death of an Indigenous man.

The officer had been demoted for 18 months and ordered to complete cultural competency training.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the issues raised regarding the appropriate penalty and the consideration of the Indigenous community's perspective were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Independent Police Review Director's decisions to screen out three complaints he filed against various police forces.

The Director had determined that the complaints either did not disclose a breach of the Police Services Act or lacked sufficient information to warrant investigation, making them not in the public interest to pursue.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Director's decisions were rational, logical, and justified given the applicant's failure to provide necessary information.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to proceed with her complaint against members of the Toronto Police Service.

The applicant alleged that the police failed to properly investigate her reports of being followed and harassed, and discriminated against her by referring to her as an 'Emotionally Disturbed Person' (EDP) in their reports.

The OIPRD screened out the complaint, concluding it was not in the public interest to proceed as an investigation was unlikely to establish misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's decision reasonable.

The court noted that classifying an individual as EDP is not inherently discriminatory, and additional police reports filed on consent demonstrated that the police had in fact investigated the applicant's concerns.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who pled guilty to neglect of duty regarding a sexual assault investigation.

The hearing officer had accepted a joint submission for the forfeiture of 64 hours of time.

The Commission applied the test for leave to appeal and found that the decision was not clearly wrong, nor did the issues raised by the appellant rise to the level of significant importance to the policing profession or the community at large.

The request for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct under the Police Services Act Code of Conduct for using profanity towards a member of the public during a tense investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by equating the use of profanity with Discreditable Conduct absolutely, without applying the required objective test.

The Commission held that an objective test, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person in the community and considering the context of the situation, must be applied.

Given the tense and potentially dangerous circumstances of the call, the Commission concluded the single use of an expletive did not meet the objective test for Discreditable Conduct and revoked the finding.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to proceed with his complaint against the police.

The OIPRD had screened out the complaint as frivolous under section 60(4) of the Police Services Act, finding no air of reality to the allegations of hacking, being followed, and police corruption.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable based on the record before it.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Independent Police Review Director dismissing his complaint against the police.

The applicant alleged he was the victim of a multi-year organized crime operation involving the police and government agencies, but refused to provide particulars of specific police misconduct.

The Director dismissed the complaint as frivolous and lacking an objective air of reality.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's decision was reasonable and the process was fair, as the complaint contained no specific allegations of police misconduct and lacked objective evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.