Court File and Parties

Citation: Ling v. Justice of the Peace Review Council, 2020 ONSC 5835 Divisional Court File No.: 226/20 Date: 2020-09-28 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Joe Ling, Applicant And: The Justice of the Peace Review Council, Respondent

Before: Favreau J.

Endorsement

[1] The applicant seeks to judicially review a decision made by the respondent dismissing a complaint made by the applicant against a Justice of the Peace. The focus of the complaint is the conduct of a trial before the Justice of the Peace arising from a traffic ticket issued to the applicant.

[2] In its decision, the respondent stated that there was no evidence in support of the allegations of misconduct and that allegations related to the Justice of the Peace’s decision-making fall outside the respondent’s authority.

[3] In his notice of application for judicial review, the applicant asks that the Divisional Court require the respondent to provide evidence to justify its decision, that the respondent’s decision be amended to “agree with the facts” and that he be awarded damages in the amount of $50,000. The grounds for the application for judicial review focus primarily on allegations of unfairness before the justice of the peace, and state that the respondent refused to provide evidence in support of its decision.

[4] The notice of application for judicial review appears to suffer from the following defects:

a. It seeks relief over which the Divisional Court does not have jurisdiction, including the request that the respondent provide evidence in support of its decision and the claim for damages;

b. It appears to be an attempt to re-litigate the issues before the Justice of the Peace;

c. It appears to be primarily an attack on the Justice of the Peace’s decision-making process and decision, issues over which the respondent does not have jurisdiction; and

d. It does not identify errors made by the respondent in dismissing the applicant’s complaint.

[5] Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.

[6] The court is considering whether to dismiss the application on the basis of Rule 2.1.01 in this case for the reasons outlined above. However, Mr. Ling should be given an opportunity to explain why his application should not be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

[7] Accordingly, the court makes the following order:

a. pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to Mr. Ling in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under rule 2.1.01 dismissing his application;

b. If Mr. Ling chooses to make written submission in response to the notice in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(3)2, his written submissions should address the apparent deficiencies in his notice of application for judicial review addressed above;

c. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under Rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the application is stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.43;

d. The registrar shall accept no further filings in the application except for Mr. Ling’s written submissions delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3); and

e. In addition to the service by mail required by Rule 2.1.01(4), the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on Mr. Ling and counsel for the respondent.

Favreau J.

Date: September 28, 2020