Court File and Parties
Released: 20070119
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Re: Gregory Forestall et al. v. Toronto Police Services Board and Toronto Chief of Police, William Blair (Court File No. 370/06)
PC Steven Correia #1081 et al. v. Toronto Police Services Board and Toronto Chief of Police, William Blair (Court File No. 388/06)
Before: Swinton J.
Counsel: Owen Rees for the Chief of Police, Moving Party (Respondent) Sharmila M. Clark for the Toronto Police Services Board Frank Addario for Forestall et al., Responding Parties (Applicants) Joanne E. Mulcahy for Correia et al., Responding Parties (Applicants)
Heard at Toronto: January 18, 2007
Endorsement
[1]
Endorsement
The Toronto Chief of Police moves for an order to hear the applications for judicial review in Court Files No. 370/06 and 388/06 at the same time pursuant to rule 6.01(1).
2Both applications for judicial review arise from a decision of the Toronto Police Services Board dated July 10, 2006, in which the Board considered the Chief’s application pursuant to s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15. That provision requires the Board’s approval to serve notices of hearing under the Act after six months have elapsed since the facts on which a complaint is based first came to the attention of the Chief or Board. The Board held that it was not unreasonable, based on the totality of material before it, to delay serving the notices of hearing and directed that the notices be served on the subject officers forthwith.
3The applicants in Court File No. 388/06 have all been charged with criminal offences (“the charged officers”), while some of those in Court File No. 370/06 were named in the Chief’s application as unindicted co-conspirators in the criminal count against the charged officers alleging conspiracy to obstruct justice. All the applicants in Court File No. 370/06 will likely be Crown witnesses in the criminal trial of the charged officers (“the witness officers”).
4Rule 6.01(1) confers a discretion on the Court to order joinder if (a) the proceedings have a question of law or fact in common, or (b) the relief claimed in them arises out of the same transaction or occurrence.
[5]
Analysis
In my view, this is an appropriate case to order that the two applications be heard together, as both applications arise out of the same transaction or occurrence – namely, the decision of the Board on July 10, 2006 resulting from the application of the Chief of Police.
6Moreover, there are questions of law or fact in common in both applications. Both seek to quash the Board’s decision, raising issues of lack of disclosure by the Chief of Police, lack of fairness in the Board’s proceedings, a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Board, insufficient reasons, and an unreasonable or patently unreasonable decision on the merits. Similar remedies are sought in both applications.
7While the parties are not the same in the two applications, nor is the factual material filed before the Board and included in the application records identical, it is desirable that these two applications be heard by the same panel of the Divisional Court. This will avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and avoid the danger of two panels reaching different results arising out of the same decision of the Board where the applications raise the same or similar issues of fact and law.
[8]
Disposition
Therefore, the motion is granted, and I order that the applications for judicial review in Court Files No. 370/86 and 388/06 be heard at the same time. As agreed by the parties, no costs are awarded.
Swinton J.
Released: January , 2007