Court File and Parties

CITATION: Martin (Durham Police Chief) v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONSC 4169

COURT FILE NO.: TBA

DATE: 2020-07-06

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – DIVISIONAL COURT - ONTARIO

RE: Martin (Durham Police Chief) v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission

COUNSEL: Sean Dewart and Chris Donovan, for the Applicant Daniel Mayer for the Respondent

HEARD: June 29, 2020

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

Case Management Endorsement

[1] This endorsement follows case management teleconferences held on June 24 and 29, 2020.

[2] In prior proceedings before this court, the Applicant challenged the appointment of an Administrator by the Respondent. This application was dismissed (2020 ONSC 1116). The applicant has sought leave to appeal from this decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal; that motion has not yet been scheduled for hearing.

[3] In these proceedings, the Applicant seeks judicial review a decision by the Administrator to direct withdrawal of disciplinary proceedings against a Durham police officer. If the charges are withdrawn, it will not be possible for them to be reinstituted.

[4] At the conclusion of the first case management teleconference, the parties agreed to try to resolve issues respecting a potential stay of the Administrator’s decision and to agree on a schedule for return of the application before a panel of this court. The parties were able to agree on these terms, in principle, and they so advised the court at the case management teleconference on June 29, 2020.

[5] On the basis of this agreement in principle:

a. The application shall proceed before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court on October 27, 2020 for an estimated 0.5 days. Unless the parties hear from the court to the contrary, this hearing shall take place by Zoom videoconference, in which case neither counsel nor the court shall gown.

b. The parties shall agree on a schedule for exchange of application materials so that all materials are placed in a file sharing platform, and the link and password for access to those materials is provided to the court by no later than 3 pm, October 2, 2020.

c. All documents should be in pdf format factums should also be in Word format.

d. Cases cited in the factums should be linked to public legal databases. Briefs of authorities should be limited to authorities not available on public legal databases.

e. The parties may (but are not required to) file factum compendiums and compendiums for oral argument.

f. Notwithstanding b., the parties may upload counsel sheets, their materials on costs, and their compendiums for oral argument, no later than October 23, 2020.

[6] The parties advised that they have a “tentative” resolution of issues respecting a stay pending the return of the application. If issues should arise concerning this resolution, the parties may seek directions from an Administrative Judge of the Divisional Court.

[7] The Applicant advises that he may apply for judicial review of the Respondent’s decision to extend the appointment of the Administrator. The extended term ends in December 2020. However, the Applicant believes that further extensions may be granted. The parties may agree to schedule this application for return on October 27th, in which case it shall be returned before the same panel hearing the application that is the subject-matter of this endorsement. If the parties so agree, then they must also agree to a schedule for exchange of materials that will see materials in the file sharing platform by October 2, 2020, and counsel must agree that they will conclude all their oral submissions on both applications within one day. If this is what counsel agree, they may so confirm arrangements with the court by correspondence to an Administrative Judge of the Divisional Court, and they do not need to schedule a further case management teleconference for this purpose.

[8] If the parties seek to schedule the proposed second application for judicial review on a return date other than October 27, 2020, then they shall schedule a further case management teleconference. The parties have been told that, barring urgency, it is unlikely that they will be able to schedule another half day appearance before a panel of this court before December 2020, at the earliest.

[9] The unsigned version of this endorsement has effect from the time it is emailed to the parties. A signed copy will be provided t5o the parties in due course.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: July 6, 2020