Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000462-00JR
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Francine Buchner, Applicant
AND:
Toronto Police Services – Toronto Parking Enforcement, Respondent
BEFORE: Shore J.
COUNSEL: Francine Buchner, self-represented Applicant
Ryan Krahn and Wendy Walberg, Respondents
HEARD: In Writing
ENDORSEMENT
1The applicant brought this application to judicially review the decision of Service Ontario not to renew her licence plate because of approximately 14 outstanding and unpaid parking tickets. The relief requested is to have the "outstanding amount owing to Service Ontario of $1,307.07 (starting from 2023-2025) waived entirely or have the interest that has accumulated be waived" so that the applicant can renew her licence plate. In addition, the applicant is seeking "compensation" quantified at $20,000,000 in damages.
2The applicant's ground for judicial review can be summarized as follows:
(a) She was denied procedural fairness because the screening officers refused her requests to reduce the amounts on the parking tickets for financial hardship.
(b) She is being harassed by parking enforcement because she filed human rights claims against various Canadian institutions.
3On July 30, 2025, I directed the Registrar to issue a notice pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, that the court is considering dismissing the application for judicial review as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
4The Court expressed concerns that:
(a) The applicant is asking for remedies for which this Court has no jurisdiction to grant;
(b) The decisions are not subject to judicial review;
(c) There are no grounds/merits for review.
(d) If she is seeking a review of the decision not to renew her licence plate, she failed to add the Province as a party to the proceedings.
(e) The applicant missed the deadlines to seek judicial review and did not bring a motion to extend the time (she has since filed a motion, although it has not been heard);
5As requested by the Court, the applicant provided written submissions. I have reviewed these submissions.
6For the reasons below, I find the application is frivolous and is dismissed.
Analysis:
The law:
7Rule 2.1.01 provides as follows:
(1) The court may make an order staying or dismissing a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 322/24, s. 1.
(2) The court may make a determination under subrule (1) in a summary manner, subject to the procedures set out in this rule. O. Reg. 322/24, s. 1.
(3) An order under subrule (1) may be made by the court on its own initiative or on the request of a party to the proceeding under subrule (4). O. Reg. 322/24, s. 1.
8Dismissal pursuant to r. 2.1 should only be ordered in the "clearest of cases". This is such a case.
9A proceeding is "frivolous" if it is "lacking a legal basis or legal merit…": Ash v. Ontario (Chief Medical Officer), 2024 ONCA 398, at para. 21; Currie v. Halton Regional Police Services Board, (2003), 233 D.L.R. (4th) 657 (ON CA), at para. 14.
This Court has no jurisdiction to make the orders requested:
10This Court does not have jurisdiction to waive money owing for parking tickets. Further, compensation, or damages, is also not a remedy available on an application for judicial review.
11To the extent the applicant seeks to have her licence plate renewed, or to address money owing to Service Ontario (10/14 tickets owing) this Court does not have jurisdiction to make orders against non-parties. The application was brought against the City of Toronto, in that the respondent to the proceedings is the Toronto Police Services, Toronto Parking Enforcement. The decision to renew a licence plate is a decision made by the Province, through Service Ontario, but the Province is not named as a party to the proceedings. As set out above, ten of the fourteen fees owing are to Service Ontario.
The decision of the screening officers is not subject to judicial review:
12In so far as the four parking tickets owing to the City of Toronto, the applicant disagrees with the screening officers' decisions not to reduce the amounts owing despite the applicant's claims for financial hardship. However, the decisions of screening officers are not subject to judicial review.
13Individuals who are unsatisfied with a screening officer's decision may request a review of that decision by the City of Toronto's Administrative Penalty Tribunal, where a hearing officer will revisit and may replace the screening officers' decision. According to Toronto Municipal Code, § 610-2.3, the recipient of a parking infraction may request a hearing review within 15 days of the screening decision. Within 30 days of the screening decision, the recipient may also request an extension of time to request a hearing review. If there has been no request for an extension of time to request a hearing review within this time, the right to request a hearing review is deemed as waived and the screening decision is affirmed.
14The applicant only sought review of one of the four tickets. Therefore, the screening officers' decisions not to reduce the three parking tickets cannot be the subject of judicial review for the reason above.
15With respect to the last ticket, the screening decision was made on June 6, 2025, after the application was issued and therefore cannot be the subject of this application for judicial review.
16For the above reasons, I find the decisions of the screening officers are not subject to judicial review.
The actions of the parking enforcement officers are not subject to judicial review:
17There is also no jurisdiction to review the actions of the parking enforcement officers.
18The applicant is asking this Court to review the actions of the Parking Enforcement Officers, suggesting that they were harassing her. The applicant also filed complaints with Toronto Police Service and the Law Enforcement Complaint Agency (“LECA”) regarding the actions of the officers. There is no decision identified for the court to review in this regard.
19The cases relied on and referred to by the applicant are completely irrelevant and relate to entirely different and unrelated circumstances and law.
20For the reasons above, I find there is no merit to the case, and it is therefore frivolous. Consequently, I make an order under r. 2.1.01(1) dismissing the Application for Judicial Review. There shall be no order as to costs.
Shore, J.
Date: January 13, 2026