CITATION: Asghar v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2018 ONSC 771 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-453/17 DATE: 20180202
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
THORBURN, MYERS, and CHARNEY JJ.
BETWEEN:
SAJJAD ASGHAR
Applicant
– and –
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Respondent
Sajjad Asghar, in person
Ryan Teschner and Morvarid Shojaei, lawyers for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: January 31, 2018
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
F.L. Myers J.
[1] Mr. Asghar seeks judicial review of the decision by the Independent Police Review Director dated July 14, 2017 to dismiss Mr. Asghar’s complaint against the Toronto Police Service.
[2] Mr. Asghar asks the Court to order the Director or Toronto’s Police Chief to conduct an investigation of the criminal activity that he alleges.
[3] As ably explained to us by Ms. Shojaei, under s. 58 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, members of the public may make complaints to the Director seeking an independent review of police misconduct. Complaints may deal with police policy, services, or conduct. If an investigation substantiates the allegations of misconduct, charges may be laid against the applicable police officers leading to hearings before the relevant chief of police under the statute. But the Director has no authority to investigate general allegations of crime apart from police misconduct as set out in the statute.
[4] Mr. Asghar filed a complaint with the Director in June 2017. In the complaint, Mr. Asghar alleges that he is the victim of a multi-year organized crime operation established by the Canadian and U.S. governments, including the Toronto police. He says that he has suffered harassment, assault, and interference with his professional and personal life at the hands of police, government agencies, and private citizens who are all being directed by organized crime.
[5] The Director asked Mr. Asghar to provide particulars of the allegations of misconduct that he makes against any specific police officer or service. Mr. Asghar declined to set out individual acts. As he explained to us, the conduct of which he complains cannot be viewed as isolated incidents. He believes that there must first be a full investigation to uncover the organized crime in the community to then give context or explain how each individual act that he has endured is part of the larger criminal enterprise. He asks the Court to order the Director or the Toronto Police Service or any appropriate body to undertake a properly resourced investigation using street squads and proper investigative tools to understand the organized crime at play.
[6] The Director conducted a preliminary screening of Mr. Asghar’s complaint pursuant to s. 60 (4) of statute. The Director determined that Mr. Asghar’s complaint was “frivolous” and “lacking an objective air of reality.” He exercised his discretionary authority to dismiss the complaint under s. 60 (4)(1) of the statute.
[7] A “frivolous” legal proceeding is one which cannot possibly result in the outcome sought. Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board, 2003 7815 (ON CA) at paras. 13, 14, and 31. We understand that Mr. Asghar is sincere in his belief in the truth of his allegations. However, his complaint did not contain any specific allegation concerning an actual interaction with a member of a police service. As such, the complaint could not succeed. Further, there is no objective evidence, documentary or otherwise, to support his more general, bald allegations of a conspiracy.
[8] The Director’s decisions are reviewable on a standard of reasonableness. Based on the foregoing, we find that the decision was reasonable.
[9] Mr. Asghar also complains that the Director’s process was unfair. The decision summarized the complaint, identified the statutory basis for the decision, and explained the reason for the decision. The Director offered Mr. Asghar the opportunity to make particularized complaints and to provide support for them. There was nothing unfair about the procedures adopted and implemented by the Director.
[10] The application is therefore dismissed.
[11] No costs are sought in the Director’s factum. If the Director wishes to make submissions on costs, it may deliver no more than three pages of submissions plus a Costs Outline to Mr. Asghar and file them with the Registrar by February 9, 2018. If the Director delivers written submissions that ask for an order that Mr. Asghar pay costs, then Mr. Asghar may respond by serving the Director’s counsel and filing with the Registrar no more than three pages of submissions by March 2, 2018.
[12] The Court dispenses with any requirement for Mr. Asghar to approve the form or content of the formal order.
F.L. Myers J.
I agree
Thorburn J.
I agree
Charney J.
Date of Release: February 2, 2018
CITATION: Asghar v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2018 ONSC 771 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-453/17 DATE: 20180202
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
THORBURN, MYERS AND CHARNEY JJ.
BETWEEN:
SAJJAD ASGHAR
Applicant
– and –
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
F.L. MYERS J.
Date of Release: February 2, 2018