CITATION: Francisco v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2018 ONSC 5472
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 235/18 DATE: 20180917
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
C. HORKINS, THORBURN and D. EDWARDS JJ.
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER FRANCISCO
Christopher Francisco, acting in person
Applicant
– and –
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Miriam Saksznajder, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: September 17, 2018
C. HORKINS J. (Orally)
[1] The applicant Christopher Francisco seeks judicial review of a decision of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (“OIPRD”) not to proceed with his complaints against various members of the Toronto Police Service, dating as far back as 1990.
[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 the discretion to screen out a complaint.
[3] The Applicant’s written complaint dated February 7, 2018, was with respect to police conduct in response to his allegations involving murder, theft of over $1 million, sexual assault against children and a police conspiracy against a victim involving over 15 years of malicious harassment.
[4] The Applicant’s complaint was in respect of three officers. Two allegations were before 2009, so they were screened out for lack of jurisdiction. The third against Constable Wang, was that the Applicant reported family members missing and Constable Wang said they were cool and just hanging out. The comments on their face would not support a finding of misconduct. The Director has discretion to ask questions but there were no questions about his complaint.
[5] The OIPRD wrote to the Applicant on March 29, 2018 to advise that the Director was exercising his discretion not to deal with the Applicant’s complaint for two reasons:
a. First, the OIPRD does not have the authority to address events that occurred before October 19, 2009, the date of the OIPRD’s proclamation into force. This is confirmed by s. 98 of the Independent Police Review Act. The OPIRD therefore has no jurisdiction to consider those matters.
b. Second, with respect to the 2013 incident, the Director indicated that given the passage of time and the nature of the complaints it was unlikely that an investigation would lead to finding reasonable grounds to believe that misconduct occurred.
[6] Accordingly, the OIPRD determined, pursuant to s. 60(4) of the Act, that the complaints would not be dealt with.
[7] In his written submissions and in his oral submissions, the Applicant referred to new allegations of police misconduct involving new officers. These complaints were not made to the Director and did not form part of the Director’s screening decision. Therefore they are not before us today.
[8] 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.
[9] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. The OIPRD does not seek costs.
[10] The application is dismissed for oral reasons delivered today. At the request of the OIPRD, no costs are awarded.
[11] I have endorsed the Record of Proceedings of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director as follows: “Application for judicial review is dismissed. No costs are ordered. Oral reasons delivered today.”
C. HORKINS J.
I agree
THORBURN J.
I agree
D. EDWARDS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 17, 2018
Date of Release: September 19, 2018
CITATION: Francisco v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2018 ONSC 5472
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 235/18 DATE: 20180917
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
C. HORKINS, THORBURN and D. EDWARDS JJ.
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER FRANCISCO
Applicant
– and –
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
C. HORKINS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 17, 2018
Date of Release: September 19, 2018