CITATION: Ricard v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2016 ONSC 3860
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 93-16
DATE: 20160609
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, DiTOMASO and STEWART JJ.
BETWEEN:
Jeffrey Ricard
Applicant
– and –
Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Ontario As Represented by the Attorney General of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police
Respondents
Ian N. McLean, for the Applicant
Peter Dailleboust, for the Respondents
HEARD at Toronto: June 9, 2016
SACHS, J (ORALLY)
[1] We are of the view that this application must be dismissed. Judicial review is a discretionary remedy which the court may decline to grant to prevent an abuse of process. In this case, it is argued that the applicant is essentially seeking to resurrect the judicial review application that he brought initially and that he chose to settle by entering into the Memorandum of Settlement (“MOS”).
[2] The terms of the MOS are clear and specific. Under the MOS, the respondent agreed to grant the applicant a new “meeting” that had to comply with three conditions. The respondent remains prepared to comply fully with all of these conditions, but the applicant has refused to attend any meeting, claiming that he is entitled to rights in relation to that meeting that were never agreed to or set out in the MOS.
[3] In the MOS, the applicant specifically withdrew all of his claims against the respondent, including his judicial review application. He also signed a comprehensive release with respect to any claims relating to his employment with the OPP and agreed that the MOS could be raised as a complete bar to any proceeding he commenced including a judicial review application.
[4] It is important to the effective administration of justice that courts respect and enforce the settlements that the parties have chosen to enter into.
[5] In our view, the bringing of this application represents a clear violation of the MOS.
COSTS
[6] I have endorsed the Application Record to read as follows: “This application is dismissed for reasons given orally by Sachs J. The Respondent is entitled to its costs of the application, which they request by fixed in the amount of $2,000.00, all inclusive. It is so ordered.”
Sachs J.
ditomaso J.
stewart J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 9, 2016
Date of Release: June 22, 2016
CITATION: Ricard v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2016 ONSC 3860
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 93-16
DATE: 20160609
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, DiTOMASO and STEWART JJ.
BETWEEN:
Jeffrey Ricard
Applicant
– and –
Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Ontario As Represented by the Attorney General of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS, J
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 9, 2016
Date of Release: June 22, 2016