CITATION: Martinez v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2020 ONSC 4979

COURT FILE NOS.: CVD-TOR-53-20JR

DATE: 20200819

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 19, 2020

IN CHAMBERS IN WRITING

Endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated August 14, 2020 (2020 ONSC 4893), this court directed Mr Martinez to 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 including:

(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.

[2] Mr Martinez has provided the following information in an amended Notice of Application:

(a) Complaint to the OIPRD on September 4, 2020 (sic), in file no. E-201909041614237166, respecting Hamilton Police Service, which complaint was denied or not investigated by OIPRD as set out in a decision letter dated November 14, 2020 (sic);

(b) Complaint to OIPRD made on April 30, 2020, respecting Niagara Police Service, in file number E-202004301549251965, which complaint was denied or not investigated by the OIPRD as set out in a decision letter dated July 7, 2020; and

(c) Complaint to the OIPRD on May 27, 2020, respecting Peel Regional Police, in file no. E-202005272217065132, which complaint was not “supported and well received” by OIPRD as reflected in its letter dated June 25, 2020, requesting more information.

[3] In the amended Notice of Application, Mr Martinez also references a fourth incident, said to involve Toronto Police Service, in respect to which no complaint has yet been made to OIPRD.

[4] I am satisfied that Mr Martinez has identified decisions of OIPRD that may be capable of review in this court set out in paras. 2(a) and (b), above. It does not appear that OIPRD has not yet made a decision respecting item (c), above, and Mr Martinez acknowledges this in his Notice of Application when he states: “however, the final decision has not been finalized, concluded and delivered.” This court will not ordinarily review a matter before the OIPRD until there is a final decision on an issue. And finally, Mr Martinez also mentions an incident involving Toronto Police which has not yet been the subject of a complaint to the OIPRD.

[5] Mr Martinez’s application materials should address his claims in respect to 2(a) and 2(b). If Mr Martinez decides to pursue some claim respecting 2(c), his materials should include his explanation as to why this court should intervene when the OIPRD has not yet made a final decision. Mr Martinez’s materials should not include evidence relating to the fourth incident, since that matter does not involve OIPRD.

[6] In order to move forward with this application, Mr Martinez now needs to complete his application record, including all of the evidence upon which he relies in support of his application, and then serve these materials together with a copy of the amended Notice of Application and a copy of this endorsement and this court’s previous endorsement (2020 ONSC 4893) on the OIPRD. He may effect service by email. Mr Martinez should then provide a copy of these materials to the court by email and request that the court schedule a case management teleconference.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: August 19, 2020