CITATION: Vincent v. Hamilton Police Service, 2012 ONSC 6177
COURT FILE NO.: DC-12-345
DATE: 2012-10-30

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

(DIVISIONAL COURT)

RE: Philippe Jerome Vincent v. Hamilton Police Service and Office of the Independent Police Review Director

BEFORE: Justices Matlow, Aston and Swinton

COUNSEL: Philippe Vincent, self-represented Marco Visentini, for the Hamilton Police Service Heather Mackay, for the Office of the Independent Police Review Director

HEARD at Hamilton: October 30, 2012

E N D O R S E M E N T

The Court:

[1] The applicant seeks several kinds of relief from this Court on this application for judicial review, including an order that his criminal conviction of September 2, 2010 be set aside, an order returning monies to him held by the Hamilton Police Service (“HPS”), and a finding that police officers violated his Charter rights.

[2] This Court has no jurisdiction to grant such relief on an application for judicial review. The challenge to the criminal conviction should have proceeded by an appeal. The relief against the police must be sought either under the Criminal Code or in a civil action where issues of fact can be determined at a trial.

[3] At most, we can review the two decisions of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (“the Director”). In one decision, the Director reviewed a decision of the HPS not to proceed to a disciplinary hearing against the subject police officers because the applicant’s complaint was unsubstantiated. The Director found the HPS decision was reasonable. The second decision was pursuant to s. 60(4) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15. The Director “screened out” the applicant’s other complaint related to the detention of $1,600 by the HPS, as he concluded that it would be better dealt with in court.

[4] The standard of review of these decisions of the Director is reasonableness.

[5] The decision to screen out the complaint relating to the $1,600 was reasonable, given the availability of the courts to deal with the request for the return of the funds.

[6] With respect to the complaint respecting the use of excessive force and discreditable conduct, the applicant had notice of the Director’s process. He had an opportunity to provide further submissions on the review, but chose not to do so. The Director had the applicant’s detailed complaint before him, as well as other detailed information that included an SIU report and the report of the HPS.

[7] The applicant submits that the decision was unreasonable, given conflicts in the various police officers’ version of events and what should have been apparent from the nature of his injuries.

[8] The Director had to decide whether to confirm the decision of the HPS that there were not “reasonable grounds” to support an allegation of police misconduct. The record shows that the Director was aware of the injuries suffered by the applicant and the applicant’s and the officers’ versions of events, including the subject officers’ acknowledgement that force was used in making the arrest. Given the material before the Director, he could reasonably conclude that it was reasonable for the HPS not to send the complaint for a disciplinary hearing.

[9] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

Matlow J.

Aston J.

Swinton J.

DATE: October 30, 2012