Vaughan Health Campus of Care v. Essensa, 2021 ONSC 2612
CITATION: Vaughan Health Campus of Care v. Essensa, 2021 ONSC 2612
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 357/20 DATE: 2021/04/12
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Lederer, Penny and Sheard JJ.
BETWEEN:
VAUGHAN HEALTH CAMPUS OF CARE, operating as VAUGHAN WORKING FAMILIES
Applicant
– and –
GREG ESSENSA (CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER), OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Respondents
COUNSEL:
Stephen Thiele, for the Applicant
Brian Gover, Stephen Aylward and Dragana Rakic for the Respondent, Greg Essensa (Chief Electoral Officer)
Ananthan Sinnadurai and Yashoda Ranganathan for the Respondent, Attorney General of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto (by videoconference): April 6, 2021
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Penny J. (Orally)
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario to refer certain complaints to the Attorney General as apparent contraventions under the Elections Finances Act.
[2] We are of the view that the issues raised in this application are indistinguishable at law from the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in PC Ontario Fund v. Greg Essensa, Chief Electoral Officer, 2012 ONCA 453. There, the Court of Appeal wrote, at paragraphs 11 and 12:
We agree with the Divisional Court that under the statutory scheme established by the EFA, the CEO’s decision to investigate the PCPO’s allegations, the manner in which he chose to conduct that investigation and his decision not to report the matter to the Attorney General as an apparent contravention, are not susceptible to judicial review.
When he dealt with the appellants’ allegations involving the WFC, the CEO’s decision not to report the complaint to the Attorney General did not decide or determine any legal rights. The CEO’s treatment of the complaint made by the appellants may well have had significant political consequences. However, it did not amount to a decision affecting the legal rights, interests, property, privileges or liberty of any person or party. It was not, therefore, a decision amenable to review under the traditional prerogative writs and it did not amount to the exercise of a “statutory power of decision” within the meaning of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, ss. 1 and 2(1). From a legal perspective, the CEO’s decision was analogous to that of a police officer refusing to lay a charge or a crown attorney declining to prosecute a case on the ground that there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution. The appellants’ plea to afford the EFA a “purposive interpretation” that would make the decision susceptible to judicial review amounts to a plea to create a different statutory regime, and that we cannot do.
[3] We are unanimously of the view that the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer in this case similarly does not affect the legal rights, interests, property, privileges or liberty of any person or party.
[4] The applicant in this case argues that the PC Ontario Fund case was different because in PC Ontario Fund, the decision was not to refer a complaint to the Attorney General as an apparent contravention, whereas in the present case, the decision was to refer the complaints to the Attorney General. The applicant also argues that, in the PC Ontario Fund case, PC Ontario Fund was the complainant, not the subject of the complaint. We are of the view that the principles articulated by the Court of the Appeal in PC Ontario Fund apply equally in either scenario. These differences, therefore, do not constitute a legal basis upon which to distinguish the Court of Appeal’s decision in PC Ontario Fund.
[5] Because there is no decision affecting rights, privileges, interests etc., there can at this stage be no impairment of any section 2(b) rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[6] We understand that costs were agreed prior to the hearing in a total of $30,000 either payable by or payable to the winning parties; that is $15,000 (all inclusive) being either payable by or payable to each of the respondents. Costs, therefore, are payable by the applicant to the respondents in the amount of $15,000 each.
___________________________ Penny J.
I agree
Lederer J.
I agree
Sheard J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: April 6, 2021
Date of Release: April 12, 2021
CITATION: Vaughan Health Campus of Care v. Essensa, 2021 ONSC 2612
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 357/20 DATE: 2021/04/12
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Lederer, Penny and Sheard JJ.
BETWEEN:
VAUGHAN HEALTH CAMPUS OF CARE, operating as VAUGHAN WORKING FAMILIES
Applicant
– and –
GREG ESSENSA (CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER), OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Penny J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: April 6, 2021
Date of Release: April 12, 2021