Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 432/19
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: SAJJAN ASGHAR, Applicant/Moving Party
AND:
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR, Respondent/Responding Party
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: Sajjad Asghar, self-represented
Scott Childs, for the OIPRD
Read in Chambers: July 24, 2020
ENDORSEMENT
1On August 12, 2019, Mr Asghar brought an application for judicial review challenging a screening decision by the Respondent not to investigate a complaint made by Mr Asghar against members of the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”).
2On August 26, 2019, Mr Asghar moved to compel documents from the TPS in this proceeding. He purported to rely upon ss. 7, 12, 15(1) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in respect to his motion. Mr Asghar brought his motion without notice to the TPS, and without providing a factual basis to establish that documents from a third party, the TPS, are admissible or relevant to the application for judicial review of a decision of the Respondent. No facts were set out in the motion materials to establish a breach of Mr Asghar’s Charter rights by the Respondent.
3On September 27, 2019, in a brief handwritten endorsement, I dismissed Mr Asghar’s motion as frivolous and vexatious. This dismissal was “without prejudice to a motion on notice to both TPS and [the Respondent], such motion to address the admissibility and relevance of the requested documents.”
4Mr Asghar subsequently delivered a Notice of Constitutional Question returnable with the main application.
5By letter to the Registrar dated July 23, 2020, the OIPRD requested that the Notice of Constitutional Question be “dismissed” pursuant to R.2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The letter from OIPRD counsel sets out various bases on which OIPRD says the court should intervene, including:
(a) The Notice is an impermissible collateral attack on my decision of September 27, 2019;
(b) The Notice does not state any basis for an alleged constitutional violation by the Respondent other than the alleged unreasonable impugned screening decision, which raises no constitutional issues on its face;
(c) The Notice challenges the constitutional validity of the Police Services Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code. There is no particularity in respect to this aspect of the Notice: the provisions of the Act and the Code that are said to be unconstitutional are not identified and no facts are alleged to explain in what respects these provisions are alleged to be unconstitutional;
(d) Mr Asghar also alleges that the Charter itself is unconstitutional, a claim that suffers from the same apparent defects as the challenges to the Police Services Act and the Human Rights Code, and, additionally, appears to be legally incoherent (since the Charter is part of the Constitution of Canada);
(e) The Notice is prolix and appears to include much that is “scandalous”, abusive, uncivil and racist. Where such improper pleadings are isolated within an otherwise proper pleading, the usual remedy is to strike out the offensive portions from the pleading; where, as here, they permeate the document, the usual remedy would be to strike the pleading out entirely: respondents should not be required to respond to such abusive improper pleadings.
6In addition, the court is concerned about the timing this application, which is currently scheduled for hearing before a panel of the Divisional Court on September 30, 2020, a date established before the suspension of ordinary court operations as a result of COVID-19. If the Notice is permitted at this late stage, the application will have to be adjourned to permit the OIPRD and the Attorneys General to respond. In addition, the parties will need to schedule a case management teleconference for directions respecting the hearing, which will be conducted by videoconference.
7The Registrar is directed to give notice to Mr Asghar pursuant to R.2.1 that the court is considering quashing his Notice of Constitutional Question for the reasons set out in the letter from counsel for OIPRD and in this endorsement. Mr Asghar shall have fifteen days to respond to this notice in accordance with R.2.1. In its ruling on the R.2.1 issue, the court will should give directions for a case management teleconference thereafter.
D.L. Corbett J.