Citation: Blair v. The Ombudsman of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 369
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 781/18 DATE: 20190114
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
B.W. (BRAD) BLAIR Applicant/Moving Party
– and –
THE OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO Respondent/Responding Party
COUNSEL: Julian N. Falconer and Asha James, for the Applicant/Moving Party Frank Cesario, for the Respondent/Responding Party
HEARD at Toronto: January 14, 2019
WILTON-SIEGEL J. (Orally)
1On this motion, the applicant seeks an order expediting the hearing of this application, an order setting a timetable, and an order that the application be case managed.
2On this application, the applicant seeks a determination of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman of Ontario under s. 14(5) of the Ombudsman Act, R.S.O. c. O.6 (the “Act”) in respect of a request filed by the applicant to review the hiring process for the next Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”). Specifically, the complaint alleges political interference in the administration of the OPP. The applicant also seeks an order requiring the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. The Ombudsman declined to investigate the complaint on the grounds that the request fell outside his jurisdiction under the Act.
3The applicant anticipates that a full day will be required for the hearing of this application. He seeks a hearing date in February or March. The respondent says there is no urgency and proposes dates in April and May. It would appear that this matter requires a full panel of the Divisional Court although I make no finding to that effect on this motion.
4The applicant has stressed the public engagement in the hiring process of the new OPP Commissioner, which the respondent does not deny. He also suggests that the credibility and integrity of the OPP will suffer if Superintendent Taverner assumes the responsibilities of the OPP Commissioner before the Ombudsman’s authority to conduct the requested review is determined. More generally, the breadth of the Ombudsman’s authority is of general importance quite apart from the present complaint.
5These are all matters of public concern. However, that does not translate automatically into a reason to expedite the hearing of this application. I find that the applicant has failed to establish that there is an urgency to this application that requires an expedited hearing in accordance with the timelines he seeks, bearing in mind that any expedited hearing would displace other matters in respect of which the parties are entitled to have their matters heard as scheduled and that the application would likely be heard within the following month or two.
6The Integrity Commissioner has confirmed that he will be conducting an inquiry in response to a complaint of the Member of Provincial Parliament for Brampton North on matters also pertaining to the appointment of the new OPP Commissioner. It is understood that this inquiry is, however, more narrowly focused than the inquiry sought by the applicant. It is also understood that the appointment of Superintendent Taverner has been delayed pending the outcome of that inquiry. There is, however, no reason why any review conducted by the Ombudsman should proceed in tandem with the inquiry of the Integrity Commissioner. Nor is it realistic to proceed on the basis that it is possible to do so on the evidence before the Court, particularly given the prospect of appeals of any determination of the Divisional Court.
7Further, there is no urgency related to the timing of the assumption of responsibilities by the new OPP Commissioner if he does so after the report of the Integrity Commissioner is delivered. The authority of the Ombudsman, if he were to conduct the requested inquiry, is limited to providing a report regarding his findings and recommendations. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to prevent Superintendent Taverner from assuming the responsibilities of the OPP Commissioner, nor does the Ombudsman have the authority to direct the Government of Ontario or Cabinet to take any action to prevent any such occurrence.
8As mentioned, the applicant says that the credibility and integrity of the OPP will be compromised if Superintendent Taverner were to assume the role of OPP Commissioner before the Ombudsman’s authority, and any review by him, is determined and completed, respectively. To the extent this is true, it is more properly the subject of a stay proceeding or other proceeding that addresses the issue directly. The Court cannot make the practical assumptions upon which the applicant says he is proceeding in concluding that an expedited hearing will have the practical consequence of a stay.
9Lastly, while the applicant says he has a concern for reprisals for bringing this application that would be blunted by a favourable determination on the merits, there is no evidence to this effect before the Court. Moreover, any such concern is more appropriately dealt with, if necessary, in proceedings that directly address the issue rather than indirectly by an expedited hearing.
10While I find that the applicant has failed to establish a basis for an urgent hearing, the Court is nevertheless concerned that this matter be addressed in a timely fashion. Accordingly, I consider that this is a matter that should be case managed for the purpose of fixing an appropriate timetable. My understanding is that both parties are prepared to cooperate in this regard. The parties should therefore immediately arrange a telephone conversation with the Divisional Court team leader, Madam Justice Thorburn, to set a date for the hearing and to fix a timetable with a view to ensuring that this application will be heard on that date.
11I have endorsed the Motion Record as follows: “The motion is dismissed for oral reasons given today.”
WILTON-SIEGEL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 14, 2019 Date of Release: January 21, 2019
CITATION: Blair v. The Ombudsman of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 369 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 781/18 DATE: 20190114
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
B.W. (BRAD) BLAIR Applicant/Moving Party
– and –
THE OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO Respondent/Responding Party
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILTON-SIEGEL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 14, 2019 Date of Release: January 21, 2019