Court File and Parties
CITATION: Asghar v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2011 ONSC 5837
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 91/11
DATE: 20111003
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
DAMBROT, SWINTON AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
SAJJAD ASGHAR
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
Respondent
In Person
Jeremy Glick, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: October 3, 2011
Oral Reasons for Judgment
DAMBROT J. (orally)
[1] Sajjad Asghar applies for judicial review of a decision made by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (“OCPC”), pursuant to the version of s.72 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15, in force prior to October 19, 2009, confirming the decision of the Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service, pursuant to the former s.59(4) of the Act, deciding not to deal with the applicant’s complaint because it was made more than six months after the facts on which it is based occurred.
[2] On December 17, 2008, the applicant was charged with careless driving and a number of other less serious Highway Traffic Act offences. On October 28, 2009, the date set for trial, the applicant agreed to make a payment to charity and the Crown withdrew the charges.
[3] The applicant claims that he was also arrested on December 24, 2008 and charged with various Criminal Code offences relating to the same incident. There is no police record in the Record of Proceedings supporting this claim. He says that these charges were disposed of together with the Highway Traffic Act charges.
[4] The applicant drafted his complaint in late January 2010, and filed it in late February, 2010. It was received by the Professional Standards Investigative Unit of the Toronto Police Service on March 1, 2010. In it, he alleged that in December, 2008, he had been the subject of an assault by unidentified police officers of the Toronto Police Service and that the police fabricated an elaborate story to justify charging him. The applicant acknowledged that his complaint was late but explained that he was waiting for the disposition of his criminal charges. All charges relating to this matter, whether criminal or not, were disposed of on October 28, 2009.
[5] On March 5, 2010, the Chief of Police, through his delegate, Inspector Yuen of the Professional Standards Unit – Complaints Administration, dismissed the complaint pursuant to the former s.59(4) of the Act. That section provides:
The Chief of Police may decide not to deal with any complaint made by a member of the public if the complaint is made more than six months after the facts on which it is based occurred.
[6] In April, 2010, the applicant applied to the OCPC for a review of the Chief’s decision pursuant to s.72 of the Act. After reviewing the record, including the complaint, and noting the nature of the delay, including the fact that the applicant took an additional four months to bring his complaint after the pertinent charges were disposed of, it confirmed the decision of the Chief. The applicant then commenced this application for judicial review.
[7] The standard of review for decisions of the OCPC respecting the disposition of complaints is reasonableness. (See Ferns v. Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), 2010 ONSC 3144 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 28-29).
[8] In our view, the decision of the OCPC was a reasonable one. The OCPC conducted a review of the documents and information provided by both parties before reaching its conclusion.
[9] There was nothing in the material to suggest that the decision of the Chief was itself unreasonable or that he, through his delegate, had improperly exercised his discretion. There had been a delay of fourteen months in bringing the complaint, including a four month delay in making the complaint even after the charges relating to the complaint were disposed of. This delay, and in particular the four month delay in making a complaint after the charges were disposed of, provided a perfectly reasonable basis for declining to deal with this complaint.
[10] The respondent also made an alternative argument in its factum that, even if the complaint had been made within six months, it would likely have been dismissed because it lacked an air of reality. We do not need to consider this argument.
[11] In the circumstances the application must be dismissed.
COSTS
[12] Costs to the respondent in the amount of $500.00.
DAMBROT J.
SWINTON J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 3, 2011
Date of Release: October 25, 2011
CITATION: Asghar v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2011 ONSC 5837
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 91/11
DATE: 20111003
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
DAMBROT, SWINTON AND
HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
SAJJAD ASGHAR
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 3, 2011
Date of Release: October 25, 2011