Citation: Lentini v. Belleville Police Services Board, 2021 ONSC 6108

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 21/2629

DATE: 20210917

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: BRAD LENTINI, Applicant

AND:

BELLEVILLE POLICE SERVICES BOARD, CHIEF RONALD GIGNAC AND BELLEVILLE POLICE SERVICE, Respondents

BEFORE: Aston, Swinton and McCarthy JJ.

COUNSEL: Leo Kinahan, for the Applicant

David Migicovsky and Jessica Barrow, for the Respondents

HEARD at Ottawa (by videoconference): September 14, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Belleville Police Services Board dated August 11, 2020 that was conveyed to him by letter on August 14, 2020. By resolution, the Board granted the Chief of Police an extension to serve a notice of hearing respecting misconduct allegations pursuant to s. 83(17) of the *Police Services Act*, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15. The Board accepted the Chief’s explanation for the delay in serving the notice, which was set out in a report before it, and concluded that it was reasonable, under the circumstances, to grant the extension.

[2] The respondents raised two preliminary issues at the outset of the hearing of this application: first, that the application for judicial review was filed outside the thirty-day time limit now found in s. 5 of the *Judicial Review Procedure Act*, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1 and in effect at the time that this application was launched; and second, this application is premature and should be dismissed.

[3] After hearing submissions on the preliminary issues, the Court ruled that the application for judicial review should be dismissed on the ground of prematurity, with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

[4] Judicial review is a discretionary remedy, and courts are reluctant to intervene, through judicial review, in the course of an ongoing administrative proceeding, absent exceptional circumstances (Ackerman v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2010 ONSC 910 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 18-19; Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 541 at para. 68). Intervention to review interlocutory decisions or to review decisions when there are adequate alternative remedies for review that have not been exhausted can cause delay and fragmentation in the administrative process.

[5] Here, as in Ackerman, the decision to extend the time for the delivery of a notice of hearing is interlocutory. It does not determine the issues on the merits. If the applicant seeks to argue that he has been prejudiced by delay, he can raise that before the hearing officer.

[6] The applicant argues that he has been denied procedural fairness because the Board’s reasons are inadequate, and therefore there are exceptional circumstances here that justify this application for judicial review. We disagree. This is not a case where the allegations of procedural fairness relate to the fairness of the ongoing disciplinary hearing. Were that the case, a court might exercise its discretion to hear the application because the hearing process is fatally flawed.

[7] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed as premature. Costs to the respondents are fixed at $7,500, an amount that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case.

Aston J.

Swinton J.

McCarthy J.

Released: September 17, 2021