Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Rana v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2021 ONSC 4433
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 320/20 JR
DATE: 20210617
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett, McKelvey and Kristjanson JJ.
Parties and Counsel
BETWEEN:
AISHA RANA
Aisha Rana, acting in person
Applicant
– and –
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Respondent
Pamela Stephenson Welch, for the Respondent
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO
Shanana Kar, for the Intervenor
Intervenor
HEARD at Toronto (by videoconference): June 17, 2021
Oral Reasons for Judgment
D.L. Corbett J. (Orally)
[1] Ms. Rana’s submission is that it was unreasonable and unlawful for police to have required her to leave her parents’ home on the night in question because she had a legal right to be there.
[2] The situation that police were confronted with when they arrived was a homeowner demanding that his daughter and her family leave the home, which the daughter was refusing to do. Police reviewed title documents provided to them by Ms Rana’s father which showed that Ms Rana’s parents had title to the house.
[3] Ms Rana had caused a Certificate of Pending Litigation (“CPL”) to be registered on title. A CPL is a claim to an interest in land. It does not establish an interest or occupancy rights in land.
[4] Police are entitled to exercise their discretion in these circumstances to enforce the right of the homeowner to quiet the enjoyment of his property and to exclude from the property, at the owner’s request, people who are, in law, invitees. That is what happened here.
[5] Of course, it would also have been in the discretion of police not to intervene as they did. It is not the role of the police to adjudicate civil claims. However, civil disputes can boil over into breaches of the peace, and police are entitled to act on the basis of their assessment of all of the circumstances. Even if police had erred, even if Ms Rana had had a legal right to occupy the home with her family, police were entitled to exercise their discretion on the basis of the information available to them and their assessment of all of the circumstances. Ms Rana could have sought to enforce her alleged rights in the civil courts afterwards.
[6] We are fully supportive of the police action in the circumstance and see nothing wrong with the way they handled it. Police had been called to this residence multiple times in prior weeks. Ms Rana’s parents were claiming that they were in fear of their lives. Whether police accepted this claim as entirely sincere or considered that it was objectively reasonable, it was certainly open to police to conclude that enough was enough, the situation appeared to be deteriorating and could deteriorate further, and Ms Rana’s father’s request should be enforced.
[7] Ms. Rana had no recourse on the night that she was told she had to leave the house, but she had recourse thereafter in the civil courts to pursue a claim to a right to be in the house. This she has done in her proceeding in which she claims the CPL, but she has not gone back to court to seek an order compelling her parents to permit her to return to live in the house. Her claimed rights remain no more than unproven allegations.
[8] In our view, the Chief’s decision that the actions of the officers did not disclose discreditable conduct, was reasonable. It therefore follows that the Director’s decision that the Chief’s decision is reasonable falls within a range of reasonable results in all of the circumstances. There is no basis for this court to interfere.
[9] The application is dismissed without costs.
D.L. Corbett J.
I agree
McKelvey J.
I agree
Kristjanson J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: June 17, 2021
Date of Release: September , 2021
CITATION: Rana v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2021 ONSC 4433
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 320/20 JR
DATE: 20210617
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett, McKelvey and Kristjanson JJ.
BETWEEN:
AISHA RANA
Applicant
– and –
OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Respondent
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO
Intervenor
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D.L. CORBETT J
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: June 17, 2021
Date of Release: