CITATION: Fayoumi v. The Corporation of the City of Windsor, 2020 ONSC 7977
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-19-016 DATE: 20201209
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Abrams, O’Bonsawin JJ.
BETWEEN:
FAWZI FAYOUMI
Fawzi Fayoumi, acting in person
Applicant
– and –
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR
Patrick T. Bode, counsel for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD (by videoconference): December 9, 2020
Sachs J. (Orally)
[1] This application concerns a parking ticket issued to the owner or operator of vehicle 470 RDT on August 18, 2018 alleging the infraction of “park obstructing traffic movement” contrary to section 10(1)(i) of the City of Windsor’s By-law 9023 (the “By-law”).
[2] The Applicant is neither the registered owner nor operator of the vehicle in question. His daughter is both. The Applicant filed a request for a hearing before a screening officer and when the penalty for the parking ticket was confirmed, he filed an appeal to a Hearing Officer pursuant to section 87 of the By-law.
[3] On December 6, 2018, the Hearing Officer confirmed the infraction and penalty. According to section 88 of the By-law, a decision of the Hearing Officer is final and not subject to review.
[4] On this application for judicial review, the Applicant admits that his daughter parked her car in a no parking spot but that she did so to unload products. Stops for unloading are permitted as long as those stops are not too long.
[5] The Hearing Officer heard the Applicant’s argument on this issue and did not accept that what occurred was merely a stop. Instead, he preferred the evidence of the parking enforcement officer that was supported by photographs. Essentially, the Applicant is seeking to overturn the Hearing Officer’s findings of fact. This is not the function of a court on a judicial review. Judicial reviews are not to be used as disguised appeals when no right of appeal exists.
[6] In his oral submissions, for the first time, the Applicant made an allegation that the Hearing Officer was biased. The basis for this allegation is an exchange between the Hearing Officer and the Applicant in which the Applicant asked the Hearing Officer to cancel the ticket. The Hearing Officer replied that he could not do so, that he did not work for the City of Windsor and that if he were to cancel the ticket, he would lose his job. This exchange does not demonstrate bias. It was an attempt by the Hearing Officer to explain to the Applicant that his role was a different one than the role played by the parking enforcement officers employed by the City of Windsor. The Hearing Officer did not issue tickets and he could not cancel tickets. His job was to preside over disputes concerning the issuance of tickets. Thus, we see no merit to the Applicant’s bias submission.
[7] Finally, we agree that the Applicant had no standing to bring this application since he is, as already noted, neither the registered owner nor the operator of the vehicle in question. However, were this the only issue, we would have considered allowing the Applicant to amend his application to substitute his daughter as the applicant. For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
[8] We fix costs in favour of the City in the amount of $2,000 all inclusive.
___________________________ Sachs J.
I agree
Abrams J.
I agree
O’Bonsawin J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: December 9, 2020
Date of Release: December 18, 2020
CITATION: Fayoumi v. The Corporation of the City of Windsor, 2020 ONSC 7977
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-19-016 DATE: 20201209
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Abrams, O’Bonsawin JJ.
BETWEEN:
BETWEEN:
FAWZI FAYOUMI
Applicant
– and –
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Sachs J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: December 9, 2020
Date of Release: December 18, 2020