COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Olumide, 2014 ONCA 712

DATE: 20141020

DOCKET: C59279

Feldman, Epstein and Benotto JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Ade Olumide

Appellant

Ade Olumide, appearing in person

Jennifer Woollcombe, for the respondent

Heard: October 6, 2014

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Julianne A. Parfett of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 18, 2014, dismissing the appellant’s application for mandamus.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Mr. Olumide appeals the summary dismissal of his mandamus application in the Superior Court. He had sought to overturn the Crown’s decision to stay his private prosecution of Kathleen Wynne.

[2] Section 579 of the Criminal Code gives the Attorney General the authority to direct a stay of proceedings at any time. The discretion to do so is reviewable only in the event of abuse of process. There is a presumption of prosecutorial good faith: see Krieger v. Law Society (Alberta) 2002 SCC 65 and R. v. Nixon 2011 SCC 34. The appellant has the onus of proving an abuse of process in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

[3] Mr. Olumide alleged that the Attorney General is in an inherent conflict of interest and this constitutes an abuse of process. The motion judge found that there was no evidence of abuse of process. Absent proof of an abuse, the discretion is not subject to review by the court: Campbell v. Ontario (A.G.) (1987), 1987 4333 (ON CA), 35 C.C.C. (3d) 480 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1987] S.C.C.A. No. 202. There is no evidence to point to an abuse of process.

[4] We therefore see no basis to allow this appeal.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.

"K. Feldman J.A."

"Gloria Epstein J.A."

"M.L. Benotto J.A."