COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Watt, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Respondent
and
Peter Waskowec
Appellant
Counsel:
Peter Waskowec, acting in person
Mary-Ellen Hurman, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: March 9, 2015
On appeal from the order of Michael A. Code of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 13, 2014.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant brought a private prosecution against Hydro One, claiming that it improperly retained his property, assaulted him and uttered threats. His private prosecution arises from a dispute with Ontario Hydro regarding the refusal to courier bills to his home.
2The appellant’s private prosecution was dismissed by the Justice of the Peace who found that the facts did not disclose a criminal offence known to law.
3The appellant commenced an appeal from the order of the Justice of the Peace. Justice Code converted the appeal to an application for mandamus because an appeal was not available. On the application, he found that it was unclear whether the Justice of the Peace had declined to issue a summons or warrant under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, or whether he had refused to receive the information under s. 504 of the Criminal Code. He also noted that no sworn information was ever received by the Justice of the Peace. Despite this, the Justice of the Peace held a hearing and seemingly rejected the information as if under s. 507.1. In so doing, he conflated the s. 504 and s. 507.1 regimes and committed a jurisdictional error.
4Justice Code noted however, that mandamus is discretionary. He found that because the materials filed did not establish a prima facie case that any of the alleged offences were actually committed, the result would inevitably have been the same even if the error had not been committed. In these circumstances, he declined to exercise his discretion to grant mandamus.
5Before this court, the appellant: (i) appealed the refusal of Justice Code to grant mandamus; and (ii) sought mandamus and other relief from this court de novo. He seeks a mandamus order requiring Hydro One to courier his bills to his home. We refuse to grant that order. The appellant brought a civil mandamus application for that very relief. It was dismissed by Justice Backhouse and the appellant unsuccessfully appealed to this court and to the Supreme Court of Canada. In any event, we are of the view that Hydro One has no duty to courier mail to the appellant’s home and has fulfilled its statutory duties for the delivery of bills.
6We also see no error in the decision of Code J. dismissing the appellant’s mandamus application.
7The appeal is dismissed. The motion brought by the appellant for mandamus and other relief is also dismissed.
“David Watt J.A.”
“P. Lauwers J.A.”
“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”