Court File and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20210820 DOCKET: M52232 (C68901)
Strathy C.J.O., Feldman and Sossin JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Sajjad Asghar Plaintiff (Appellant/Moving Party)
and
The City of Toronto Defendant (Respondent/Responding Party)
and
The Mayor John Tory Defendant (Respondent/Responding Party)
and
The Toronto Police Services Board, Members Chair Jim Hart, Marie Moliner (Vice-Chair), Mayor John Tory, Michael Ford Councillor, Councillor Frances Nunziata, Ainsworth M. Morgan, Lisa Kostakis Defendants (Respondents/Responding Parties)
and
The Toronto Police Chief (Interim) James Ramer Defendant (Respondent/Responding Party)
and
The Toronto Police Deputy Chief Peter Yuen Defendant (Respondent/Responding Party)
Counsel: Sajjad Asghar, acting in-person Natalie Salafia, for the responding parties
Heard: in writing
Reasons for Decision
[1] The self-represented moving party, Mr. Asghar, brings this motion to review the order of the chambers judge, dated January 15, 2021, dismissing Mr. Asghar’s interim motion for an order: (1) requiring the responding parties to produce certain 911 call recordings, police video and audio recordings, transcripts etc.; (2) permitting electronic filing and service of all appeal materials; and (3) granting an extension of time to perfect his appeal.
[2] The motion before the chambers judge was brought in the context of Mr. Asghar’s appeals from three orders of Ferguson J., all dated November 19, 2020, dismissing three separate actions brought by Mr. Asghar against the City of Toronto, the Mayor of Toronto, the Toronto Police Services Board, and various other Toronto municipal and police entities and officials. Ferguson J. found each of those actions to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process within the meaning of r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 143.
[3] Mr. Asghar filed a motion before the chambers judge seeking interim relief in two of his appeals, which bear court file numbers C68902 and C68901. The primary relief sought by Mr. Asghar on the motion in appeal C68901 was the production of 911 call recordings and other video and audio recordings and transcripts. Mr. Asghar submitted before the chambers judge that the material requested would be “important” for his appeal.
[4] On January 15, 2021, the chambers judge concluded there was “no foundation to make the order requested” and dismissed Mr. Asghar’s motion.
[5] On this panel review motion, Mr. Asghar seeks to set aside the order of the chambers judge and obtain the same relief sought on the underlying motion. We decline to grant that relief. A panel review of the motion in the C68902 appeal was dismissed in written reasons dated May 20, 2021.
[6] As stated in those reasons, a panel review of a chambers judge’s decision is not a de novo determination. Where the chambers judge has made a discretionary decision, the decision is entitled to deference and the reviewing panel will not interfere absent legal error or misapprehension of material evidence: Machado v. Ontario Hockey Association, 2019 ONCA 210, at para. 9. In addition, if the chambers judge committed an error in principle, the panel may intervene: Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2017 ONCA 827, 138 O.R. (3d) 1, at para. 21.
[7] Applying the foregoing, as in appeal C68902, we see no basis on which to interfere with the decision of the chambers judge.
[8] Accordingly, Mr. Asghar’s panel review motion for production is dismissed.
[9] Mr. Asghar has also requested an extension of time of 30 days to perfect appeals C68901 and C68902, whether or not the other relief is granted. That extension of time to perfect is granted in both cases to 30 days from the date of these reasons. The respondents shall have 30 days to respond after service of the perfection materials.
[10] Once the records are complete, these two matters will be listed to be argued with appeal C68903 which will be adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar for the argument of all three appeals together.
“G.R. Strathy C.J.O.” “K. Feldman J.A.” “Sossin J.A.”