CITATION: Martinez v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2020 ONSC 4893
COURT FILE NOS.: CVD-TOR-53-20JR
DATE: 20200814
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Martinez v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director
COUNSEL: Alex Martinez, self-represented Applicant
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
DATE: August 14, 2020
IN CHAMBERS IN WRITING
[1] Mr Martinez sent a Notice of Application to the Superior Court of Justice Civil office in Toronto, indicating that he considered his application urgent. The Civil Office forwarded the documents to the Divisional Court because the subject-matter of the application is within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court. This court reviewed the Notice of Application and directed the Registrar to send the following email to Mr Martinez:
Justice D.L. Corbett, the Divisional Court Administrative Judge, has directed us to respond to your urgent Notice of Application as follows:
Jurisdiction for the application for judicial review of a decision or decisions of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director lies with the Divisional Court.
All matters in Divisional Court are currently subject to the Practice Direction and Notice to the Profession dated June 29, 2020, a copy of which is attached for your reference.
You may seek to schedule a case management teleconference with a Divisional Court Judge in accordance with the provisions of the Practice Direction respecting the Divisional Court. You will need to provide us with all of the information specified in the Practice Direction before a judge will authorize staff to schedule a case management teleconference.
Finally, the Notice of Application you sent to the Civil Office of the Toronto Superior Court has problems apparent on the face of the Notice. The Notice should identify precisely the decision(s) that you are challenging, and the precise bases for your challenges. The court will require you to provide a Notice of Application that includes these particulars before a case management conference is scheduled.
Please read the Notice to the Profession dated June 29, 2020 for the full instructions on how to schedule your matter. https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/notices-and-orders-covid-19/notice-div-ct-june-2020/#D2_Scheduling_Divisional_Court_Matters
[2] Mr Martinez responded with several emails and then sent a revised Notice of Application on August 7, 2020. In his emails Mr Martinez expressed concerns about the timelines for issuing a Notice of Application and scheduling a case management conference.
[3] As Mr Martinez has been advised by staff, filing deadlines have been suspended temporarily because of COVID-19. However, the court has received his Notice of Application and he may consider that his proceeding has been commenced as result; the court is not currently issuing process at the court office, so Mr Martinez will not be receiving a formal issued Notice of Application. A temporary file number has been assigned to this application: CVD-TOR-53-20JR.
[4] Mr Martinez’s revised Notice of Application provides considerably more information than the original Notice, however it still does not identify the decisions from the OIPRD that Mr Martinez seeks to challenge. This is necessary information for this application to proceed. In para. 2 of the Notice, Mr Martinez refers to “all the decisions” and “every decision” of the OIPRD, but does not specifically identify any of them. Mr Martinez then identifies four incidents:
(a) An incident involving a “Family matter” and alleged harassment of the Applicant’s brother and family by Hamilton police.
(b) An incident where the Applicant was asked by private security to leave the Scotiabank Convention Centre. The Applicant subsequently made a complaint to Niagara Police Service and was dissatisfied with the response to his complaint.
(c) An incident where the Applicant was stopped and asked to leave Pearson International Airport. The Applicant filed a police complaint with Peel Regional Police and was not satisfied with the response to his complaint.
(d) An allegedly illegal “bag search” done, apparently by private security, at Imagine Cinemas in Toronto. The Applicant complained to Toronto Police Service and was not satisfied with the response to his complaint. The Applicant states that he has ongoing internal complaints at the TPS which will proceed to the OIPRD if they are not resolved to his satisfaction at TPS.
[5] Mr Martinez must identify particulars of the decisions he challenges that were made by the OIPRD and state the bases on which he asks this court to review those decisions. At minimum, this information must include:
(a) The date of the complaints made by him to OIPRD;
(b) The disposition of those complaints by OIPRD, including the dates of those decisions and any file numbers or other identifying features of those complaints; and
(c) The legal bases on which Mr Martinez challenges each of the OIPRD decisions.
Mr Martinez is directed to revise his Notice of Application a third time to include these particulars about the OIPRD decisions he is challenging. The court will move forward with this Application on the basis of the response provided by Mr Martinez to this second request for particulars of the OIPRD decisions.
[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: August 14, 2020