CITATION: Massiah v. Justices of the Peace Review Council, 2020 ONSC 3954
COURT FILE NO.: DC 808/18
DATE: 20200629
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - DIVISIONAL COURT - ONTARIO
RE: Massiah v. Justices of the Peace Review Council
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: Osborne Barnwell, for the Applicant Massiah Scott Hutchison and Matthew Gourlay, for the respondent JPRC Brent Kettles and Joanna Chen, for the AG Ontario Ernest Guiste, self-represented
CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT
[1] This endorsement reflects a case management conference conducted by teleconference on June 25, 2020. It follows this court’s case management endorsement of May 20, 2020 (2020 ONSC 3273), the decision of Penny J. released June 11, 2020, denying Mr Guiste’s motion for leave to intervene in this application as a party (2020 ONSC 3644), and this court’s case management endorsement of June 12, 2020 providing directions and scheduling the application for hearing on July 31, 2020 (2020 ONSC 3720).
[2] Mr Guiste wishes to have the decision of Penny J. refusing him leave to intervene as a party reviewed by a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court. This court proposed that the review take place before the panel scheduled to hear the application on July 31st. Mr Guiste proposed that the review take place before return of the application, and suggested that it be heard in writing to accomplish this. After discussion, all parties agreed that the review be heard by a panel in writing, and all parties agreed to a schedule for quick exchange of materials by July 3^rd^.
[3] The court appreciates the practical approach taken by all counsel. Mr Guiste agreed to serve his materials by June 29, 2020. The respondent JPRC agreed to provide responding materials by July 3, 2020. The AG Ontario has not yet decided whether to respond to the review request but if it decides to do so then it will serve responding materials by July 3^rd^. Mr Barnwell indicated that his client does not intend to participate in the review request.
[4] The materials shall be uploaded to the drop box established pursuant to my endorsement of June 12, 2020, and shall be placed in a separate file folder within the drop box entitled “Review Request” by July 3, 2020. This court’s directions respecting the format and particulars for these materials, set out in this court’s endorsement of June 12, 2020, should be followed for materials filed respecting the review request. Mr Guiste suggested that it would be better to have Appellant’s counsel establish the drop box. It does not matter to the court which counsel establishes the drop box, and the court does not understand why it would matter: counsel will all have access to the drop box and so will be able to see the materials that are in the drop box for the court to download.
[5] The court indicated that it will try to put the review request before the same panel that is scheduled to hear the underlying application on July 31, 2020. However, this may not be possible, given the schedule of judges over the summer. It was suggested that the review is required to be before the panel hearing the underlying application. I am unaware of such a requirement and, indeed, in most situations a review of the decision of a single judge takes place before the case has been scheduled for a hearing on the merits and before the identity of the panel that will hear the case on the merits is known.
[6] The court has endorsed its fiat on this endorsement this day; the unsigned version distributed to the parties today has the authority and effect of the signed version, a copy of which will be provided to the parties in due course after the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted.
D.L. Corbett J.
Date: June 29, 2020