ONSC 5401
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 028/18 DATE: 20180913
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, THORBURN and MATHESON JJ.
BETWEEN:
JONATHAN CONRADO
Kenneth E. Wise, for the Applicant
Applicant
– and –
THE OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Miriam Saksznajder and Morvarid Shojaei, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: September 13, 2018
SWINTON J. (Orally)
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (“OIPRD”) not to proceed with his complaint against the Toronto Police Service dated April 20, 2017. He is not pursuing his application concerning an earlier decision dated December 16, 2016.
[2] The standard of review is reasonableness. Pursuant to s. 60 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, the Director has a discretion to screen out a complaint.
[3] The applicant’s written complaint was with respect to police conduct in response to his allegations that he was being followed, that his electronic devices were being hacked and that his home was being entered. He tied these allegations back to his earlier complaint that the police failed to investigate an allegation of human trafficking. When staff of the OIPRD asked him for further information, he made allegations of police corruption.
[4] The OIPRD concluded that there was no air of reality to the complaint of police misconduct that required investigation. Accordingly, the OIPRD determined, pursuant to s. 60(4) of the Act, that the complaint would not be dealt with as it was frivolous.
[5] The applicant today suggests that the police were improperly influenced by their view of his mental health. The documents on which he relies were obtained through a freedom of information request after the OIPRD decision. The mental health issue had not been raised in the applicant’s complaint.
[6] The task of this Court is to determine the reasonableness of the OIPRD decision based only on the record that was before it. Given the record before the OIPRD, its decision was reasonable. There is no basis for judicial intervention.
[7] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. The OIPRD does not seek costs.
[8] I have endorsed the Application Record as follows: “The application is dismissed for oral reasons delivered today. No costs are awarded.”
___________________________ SWINTON J.
I agree
THORBURN J.
I agree
MATHESON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 13, 2018
Date of Release: September 14, 2018
ONSC 5401
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 028/18 DATE: 20180913
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, THORBURN and MATHESON JJ.
BETWEEN:
JONATHAN CONRADO
Applicant
– and –
THE OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 13, 2018
Date of Release: September 14, 2018