Brown v. Ford, 2019 ONSC 6436

Court File and Parties

Citation: Brown v. Ford, 2019 ONSC 6436 Divisional Court File No.: 567/19 Date: 2019-11-06 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Gary David Brown a.k.a. Gary David Robert Brown, Applicant And: Rob Ford (Posthumously) et al., Respondents

Before: F.L. Myers J. Read at Toronto: November 5, 2019

Endorsement

Endorsement

1This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request by lawyers for the respondent Mark Saunders under rule 2.1.01(6).

2Mr. Brown has brought an application for judicial review in the Divisional Court. The notice of application provides that Mr. Brown is bringing this proceeding under the Criminal Proceedings Rules, SI/202-7.

3The application concerns Mr. Brown’s assertion that in 1997 he was injured on municipal property in Toronto. He says that at that time he communicated with City officials to seek compensation. He says that in retaliation for his efforts to obtain compensation for his injuries, in 2001 Toronto police wrongfully evicted him from his premises. In further retaliation, he says that in 2012, Toronto police wrongfully arrested and strip-searched him, made him walk shoeless in the rain for over four hours, and required him to live in a homeless shelter for over nine months.

4In this application for judicial review, Mr. Brown asks the court to make a number of declarations of the guilt of the respondents for numerous criminal offences, abuse of power, breach of trust, violation of his rights under the Charter of Rights, intentional affliction of pain, and negligence. He also asks the court to order that the respondents: be photographed and fingerprinted for the CPIC database, spend a day at Metro West Detention Centre, pay the applicant one year of their respective salaries with interest at 24% from the date of his arrest in 2012, and sign an admission of guilt and apology to Mr. Brown. He also asks the court to strip the respondent Doug Holyday of his “Key to the City” award.

Analysis

5It seems to me that this application may be frivolous and vexatious within the meaning of Rule 2.1.01(1).

6Judicial review is a specialized summary procedure for challenging governmental decisions under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c J.1. In a judicial review proceeding, the Divisional Court cannot hear criminal trials or civil lawsuits for damages. In addition, most of the relief that Mr. Brown claims does not seem to be the type of relief that can be ordered by a court in any case – civil, criminal, or judicial review.

7Mr. Brown should be provided with an opportunity to explain why his application for judicial review should not be dismissed for being frivolous and vexatious. In this context, a “frivolous” application is one that does not claim relief that the law provides. A “vexatious” application is one brought for an ulterior or wrongful purpose. Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board, 2003 ONCA 7815.

Disposition

8On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, the court makes the following order:

a. Pursuant to rule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the applicant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing this application;

b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, this application is stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.43;

c. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this application excepting only the applicant’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);

d. In addition to the service by mail required by 2.1.01(4) rule, the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the applicant and counsel for the respondents by email if it has their email addresses.