Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-05-10 Docket: C66009

Judges: Watt, Pardu and Nordheimer JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent/Moving Party

and

Golam Mehedi Appellant/Responding Party

Counsel

Golam Mehedi, in person

Karen Papdopoulos, for the moving party

Heard: in writing

Appeal Information

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Anne London-Weinstein of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 11, 2018, dismissing an application for certiorari setting aside the order of Justice of the Peace Donald Buchanan of the Ontario Court of Justice, refusing to issue process.

Reasons for Decision

[1] In an application in writing directed to the Registrar, the Crown seeks an order under s. 685 of the Criminal Code summarily dismissing Mr. Mehedi's appeal from the order of London-Weinstein J. that dismissed Mr. Mehedi's application for certiorari from the order of a Justice of the Peace that refused to issue process on an information that Mr. Mehedi had laid before the justice.

[2] The Crown's request was directed to a panel of this court for determination. We have reviewed the material filed by Mr. Mehedi on his appeal including his factum. We have also reviewed the written request of the Crown under s. 685(1).

[3] Section 685(1) reads:

Where it appears to the registrar that a notice of appeal, which purports to be on a ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone, does not show a substantial ground of appeal, the registrar may refer the appeal to the court of appeal for summary determination, and, where an appeal is referred under this section, the court of appeal may, if it considers that the appeal is frivolous or vexatious and can be determined without being adjourned for a full hearing, dismiss the appeal summarily, without calling on any person to attend the hearing or to appear for the respondent on the hearing.

[4] We are satisfied that s. 685(1) applies to Mr. Mehedi's appeal. Mr. Mehedi continually states, in his grounds of appeal, that the certiorari judge "erred in law" in various different ways. While he does allude to certain factual matters in his grounds of appeal, the thrust of his complaint with the decision of the certiorari judge is that she erred in law in dismissing his application. Thus, s. 685(1) is properly invoked.

[5] In our view, this appeal should be summarily dismissed for three reasons.

[6] First, the appeal is, on its face, frivolous, this is to say, it is completely devoid of merit. The issues raised by Mr. Mehedi were fully canvassed by the certiorari judge. None of Mr. Mehedi's complaints regarding the decision of the certiorari judge demonstrate any error of law.

[7] Second, on March 20, 2019, Molloy J. found Mr. Mehedi to be a vexatious litigant. She ordered that he be enjoined from instituting or continuing any proceedings in any Superior Court in Ontario for review of lower court proceedings or Crown action with respect to any private criminal information, except with leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. Mr. Mehedi has a history of attempting to institute private prosecutions. Molloy J. expressly included in her order that the term "any Superior Court in Ontario" included the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Mr. Mehedi had not obtained an order of a Superior Court judge granting him leave to continue with this appeal.[1]

[8] Third, Mr. Mehedi contends, in his Notice of Appeal, that the underlying application was not one for certiorari but, rather, says that it was a summary conviction appeal. This is clearly not the case. The offences alleged are hybrid offences. Under s. 34(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21, they are deemed to be indictable unless and until a contrary election of mode of procedure is made. As the informant, Mr. Mehedi, has no right of appeal to this court. We would observe that, even if Mr. Mehedi were correct in his contention, that this is a summary conviction appeal, then he does not have a right of appeal to this court. Rather, he requires leave to appeal which he neither sought nor obtained.

[9] For these reasons, this appeal is dismissed.

David Watt J.A. G. Pardu J.A. I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.

Footnote

[1] In relying on this ground, we do not comment on the jurisdiction of Molloy J. to make the order that she did: Ontario v. Strang, 2018 ONCA 844. However, unless and until that order is successfully appealed, and reversed, it remains an order of the Superior Court of Justice that Mr. Mehedi is required to obey.