Court File and Parties
CITATION: Hamid v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2015 ONSC 2353
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 564/14
DATE: 20150417
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Swinton, H. Sachs and M. Labrosse, JJ.
BETWEEN:
KHALID HAMID
Applicant
– and –
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Respondent
Applicant was self-represented
Jean C.H. Iu, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: April 10, 2015
Reasons for Decision
H. SACHS J.:
Introduction
[1] In June of 2014, the applicant, Mr. Hamid, complained to the respondent Office of the Independent Review Director about various events that he alleged occurred over the years 2009 to 2011. The respondent “screened out” his complaint, as it was entitled to under its governing legislation, because it was filed more than six months after the events giving rise to the complaint. The applicant applied for a reconsideration of the “screening out” decision. The respondent considered the applicant’s request and found that there were no grounds to reconsider its decision.
[2] The applicant seeks to review the respondent’s decision to “screen out” his complaint on the grounds that the respondent’s decision was unreasonable and was not supported by adequate reasons.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the applicant’s application.
The Complaint
[4] The applicant’s complaint contains a number of allegations against a number of people, including two men whom the applicant alleges are the leaders of a gang that is out to harm him. According to the applicant, one of these men broke into his home in Toronto using a master key.
[5] The applicant also alleges that another man, called Tom, whom he describes as a retired police trainer from Windsor, made a noise complaint against him and threatened him. Given the specifics of the threat, the applicant concluded that Tom was working with the two gang leaders who were out to get him.
[6] According to the complaint, in February of 2011, the applicant called his family doctor complaining about being tasered and being subjected of other electric shock devices. He also told his doctor that two men wanted to kill him. Later the same day, his wife returned from the same doctor’s office and, after observing the applicant’s condition, called 911.
[7] An ambulance arrived and the applicant was taken to hospital. According to the applicant, he was mistreated by the ambulance driver, and so he asked the driver to call the police, which the driver did. When the police arrived, the applicant saw that they had guns. On the way to the hospital, he observed the ambulance driver (whom the applicant alleges was a police officer) on the phone with the two gang members who wanted to kill the applicant.
[8] While the applicant was at the hospital, the police gave the ambulance driver a key ring with a white bony thing that the driver had deliberately dropped at the applicant’s house. The applicant also alleges that while he was at the hospital, he was mistreated by being chained to the bed and being accused of being a terrorist.
[9] In March of 2011, the applicant alleges that he attended at a hospital in Toronto because his wife received an anonymous phone call that he had an appointment at that hospital. When he went to the hospital, he was referred to another hospital where they gave him shock treatments and told him they would keep him for three days. They actually kept him for a week. According to the applicant, the doctors at the hospital were working with the two gang members who were out to get him.
The “Screening Out” Decision
[10] On June 19, 2014, the respondent advised the applicant that it had reviewed his complaint dated June 3, 2014 and had determined that it related to his “interaction with members of the Windsor Police Service in February 2011 when they attended [his] residence and [he was] subsequently taken to the hospital”.
[11] The respondent then advised the applicant that s. 60(2) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 (the “Act”), permits it not to deal with a complaint if it is made more than six months after the events giving rise to the complaint are alleged to have occurred. The respondent also referenced the fact that in determining whether to exercise its discretion to deal with a complaint that is made after the six-month period, it must have regard to the criteria set out at s.60(3) of the Act.
[12] The respondent concluded by saying:
Given the passage of time and taking into the account the nature of your complaint, the Director has determined that it would not be in the public interest to continue to deal with your complaint.
[13] After he received this decision, the applicant wrote to the respondent to explain the reasons for the delay in filing his complaint. These included the fact that his wife had left him and taken his children, which had ruined his life. He also stated that he had been busy gathering information about the two men who had masterminded his demise and that he had been filing complaints with other agencies.
[14] The respondent wrote back, stating that it had reviewed the additional information and had decided not to reconsider its decision. It assured the applicant that it had treated his complaint seriously and had forwarded a record of it to the Chief of the Windsor Police Service, along with its decision not to proceed further.
Adequacy of Reasons
[15] In Wall v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2014 ONCA 884, the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with the obligation of the respondent to give reasons for its decisions to “screen out” complaints on the basis that they were filed after the six-month deadline. In doing so, it confirmed that
The Director’s reasons for screening out a complaint under s. 60(2) of the Police Services Act need not be lengthy. They need not be complex. But, as the Divisional Court observed, they must at least answer the question ‘Why?’ The complainant and the court (for purposes of review), are entitled to know the rudiments of the explanation for why the complaint has been screened out. (para. 62)
[16] In considering the question of the adequacy of reasons, it is also important to refer to paragraph 15 of the Supreme Court decision, in Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador, 2011 SCC 62, where the court stated that in reviewing a tribunal’s reasons, a reviewing court “should not substitute its own reasons, but they may, if they find it necessary, look to the record for the purpose of assessing the reasonableness of the outcome”. Therefore, in understanding why a tribunal made the decision it did, it is also permissible for a reviewing court to look at the record before the tribunal.
[17] In this case, unlike in Wall, the respondent did not simply dismiss the complaint because it was filed beyond the six-month period. It adverted to the fact that it had a discretion to hear the complaint in spite of the fact that it was filed late and gave reasons why it was not exercising that discretion.
[18] The decision also correctly identified that the only allegation that fell within its jurisdiction was the one involving the police attendance at the applicant’s home when he was taken to hospital in February of 2011. However, a review of the applicant’s complaint makes it clear that any alleged misconduct against him was committed by the ambulance driver, not the police.
[19] While the applicant alleges that this ambulance driver was a police officer, there is no objective evidence to support this.
[20] Therefore, viewed in the context of the record, it is very possible for this court to understand why the respondent did what it did. It is also clear that the tribunal was alive to the discretion it had and to the relevant factors it had to consider when exercising that discretion.
The Reasonableness of the Result
[21] In Wall, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the respondent’s decisions are subject to review on a standard of reasonableness.
[22] Given the fact that the only aspect of the applicant’s complaint that involved the Windsor police focused its misconduct allegations on the ambulance driver and given the amount of time that had passed since the events giving rise to the complaint (approximately forty months), the respondent reasonably concluded that the public interest would not be served by dealing with the complaint.
Conclusion
[23] For these reasons, the application is dismissed. Since the respondent does not seek costs, there will be no order as to costs.
H. SACHS J.
SWINTON J.
M. LABROSSE J.
Released: April 17, 2015
CITATION: Hamid v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2015 ONSC 2353
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 564/14
DATE: 20150417
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Swinton, H. Sachs and M. Labrosse, JJ.
BETWEEN:
KHALID HAMID
Applicant
– and –
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
H. SACHS J.
Released: April 17, 2015