Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Direk v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2012 ONSC 5898
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 162/10 and 640/10
DATE: 20121011
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LAX, HAMBLY and LEDERER JJ.
Parties
B E T W E E N :
URAL DIREK; ERTUG DIREKOGLU; KEMAL DIREKOGLU; ELIF DIREKOGLU
Applicant
– and –
INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER/ONTARIO; PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Respondents
Counsel and Hearing
Ural Direk and Kemal Direkoglu, Self-Represented
Lawren Murray, for the Respondent Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
Ananthan Sinnadurai, for the Respondent Attorney General of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: October 11, 2012
Oral Reasons for Judgment
LAX J.: (orally)
[1] Before us are two applications for judicial review of decisions of the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario. The applicants filed materials consisting of thousands of pages, almost all irrelevant and incomprehensible. A Turkish interpreter was present to interpret for the applicant Ural Direk. His son, Kemal Direkoglu, speaks English. The hearing was scheduled for one full day.
[2] At the commencement of the proceedings, Mr. Direkoglu provided the panel with a document entitled “Preliminary Submissions for Standby of Ural Direk’s and Kemal Direkoglu’s inter alia Judicial Review Applications”. This document, which has offensive anti-semitic language alleging a “high-authoritative Jewish conspiracy” was in effect a request for adjournment. The basis for adjournment included reliance on a number of proceedings in among other forums, the Supreme Court of Canada, the International Court of Geneva in Switzerland and the Law Society of Upper Canada. These proceedings are alleged to be pending. None of these proceedings are relevant to the applications before us and counsel for the Information and Privacy Commissioner advised the Court that in the Supreme Court of Canada proceeding, the file has been closed.
[3] The Court advised Mr. Direkoglu that there was no reason to adjourn these applications and invited him to proceed with his argument. He refused to do so. He was advised that if he failed to proceed the applications would be dismissed. The record will show that he acknowledged that he understood this. Nonetheless, he refused to proceed.
[4] These applications consumed considerable resources of the parties, court staff and this panel. The resources of the Court are limited. The applicants claim to be involved in over one hundred legal proceedings, a number of which we understand to be in the Superior Court.
[5] We respect the rights of members of the public to bring proceedings and to be heard, but where members of the public do not respect the procedures and protections the Court offers, the rights of others are adversely affected. This makes it very difficult for the Court to serve those members of the public who need access to the courts. It seems to us that it is time for an affected party or the Attorney General to consider an application under s.140 of the Courts of Justice Act.
[6] The applications are dismissed.
LAX J.
HAMBLY J.
LEDERER J.
DATE OF REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: October 11, 2012
DATE OF RELEASE: October 24, 2012
CITATION: Direk v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2012 ONSC 5898
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 162/10 and 640/10
DATE: 20121011
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LAX, HAMBLY and LEDERER JJ.
B E T W E E N :
URAL DIREK; ERTUG DIREKOGLU; KEMAL DIREKOGLU; ELIF DIREKOGLU
Applicant
– and –
INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER/ONTARIO; PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LAX J.
DATE OF REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: October 11, 2012
DATE OF RELEASE: October 24, 2012