Court File and Parties

CITATION: Ling v. Justices of the Peace Review Council, 2021 ONSC 7006

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 226/20

DATE: 20211022

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: JOE LING, Applicant

AND:

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE REVIEW COUNCIL, Respondent

BEFORE: Swinton, Lederer and Doyle JJ.

COUNSEL: Joe Ling, self-represented

Linda R. Rothstein and Glynnis Hawe, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto (by videoconference): October 20, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

The Court:

Background

[1] In September 2018, the applicant, Joe Ling, was charged with proceeding through an intersection when the signal light was red. This was allegedly caught on a red-light camera. He was charged with an offence under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144(18.1).

[2] On March 22, 2019, Mr. Ling appeared before Justice of the Peace L. Crawford. At the proceeding, he articulated his concerns with the ticket and its alleged flaws. He repeated to the Justice of the Peace that there were serious errors on the ticket and stated that he wished to present evidence that the ticket was not accurate. The Justice of the Peace, having determined that Mr. Ling’s concerns with the ticket went beyond its form and touched on the evidence that concerned the substance of the charge, requested that he enter a plea of not guilty or guilty, because there would have to be a trial.

[3] The trial proceeded after Mr. Ling pled not guilty. Evidence was heard, and Mr. Ling was found guilty of failing to stop at a red light and fined $100.

[4] Mr. Ling appealed. Before his appeal was heard, he also filed a letter of complaint with the Justices of the Peace Review Council (the “Council”) on June 17, 2019. In his letter, he made the following complaints against the Justice of Peace who conducted the trial:

1. The Justice of the Peace failed to “follow the court laws and law”;
2. The conviction was not supported by “trial evidence and science;”
3. The Justice of the Peace had discriminated against him;
4. The Justice of the Peace violated his “legal rights and Charter rights”; and
5. The Justice of the Peace imposed an unjust fine which would cause additional financial hardship.

[5] In a letter dated July 23, 2019, the Assistant Registrar of the Council acknowledged receipt of his complaint and his voicemail messages and advised Mr. Ling that the Council’s authority was limited to investigation and review of complaints regarding judicial conduct, and that if a person disagrees with the decision, he could proceed with an appeal.

[6] As it is obliged to do, the Council appointed a Complaints Committee to investigate (see Justices of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.4, s. 11). The Committee reviewed the transcript of the trial conducted by the Justice of the Peace and the transcripts of all the other matters heard by her that morning.

[7] Mr. Ling’s complaint was dismissed. In a decision letter dated December 9, 2019, the Complaints Committee stated that it found no evidence to support his allegations of misconduct. The Committee, as part of its decision, advised Mr. Ling that the assessment of the evidence, the finding of guilt and the fine imposed were all matters of judicial decision making and outside the jurisdiction of the Justices of the Peace Review Council. In particular, the letter stated:

Based on its review of the transcript, the committee found no evidence to support the allegation that the justice of the peace treated you differently from other defendants. The committee observed that Her Worship was very patient with you, listened to your submissions, explained the trial process, and made a determination based on the evidence. The committee observed from the transcript, contrary to your allegations, Her Worship gave you an opportunity to make submissions regarding the problems with your ticket and the red-light camera prior to the start of the trial.

[8] There was a further exchange of correspondence with Mr. Ling, who inquired what evidence the Committee relied on in its determination to dismiss the complaint. The Council responded to Mr. Ling in a letter dated December 20, 2019, advising him that they had reviewed the “full transcript,” and that neither the legislation nor the procedures of the Council provide the committee or the Registrar with authority to supplement the reasons. It stated that it had no statutory authority to re-open complaints.

[9] The Crown subsequently consented to Mr. Ling’s appeal of his conviction. The conviction was set aside by the Court of Appeal and the charge withdrawn on March 11, 2020. No reasons were given.

[10] Mr. Ling then brought this application for judicial review of the decision of the Council. He makes a number of complaints against the Council:

• the Council used fake and concealed “evidence” to justify its decision,
• it refused to show “evidence”,
• it tried to cover up the wrongdoing of the Justice of the Peace,
• it refused to show evidence to justify its decision, and
• it showed no respect for the facts, evidence and transparency and abused its power.

The Standard of Review

[11] The standard of review on this application is reasonableness with respect to the merits of the decision.

[12] With respect to issues of procedural fairness, there is no standard of review. The issue for the reviewing court is whether the requisite level of fairness has been accorded in the circumstances.

Analysis

[13] There is nothing in the record or the submissions made by Mr. Ling that justifies his allegations. They demonstrate a failure to understand the responsibility of the Council and the process and role of the Complaints Committee.

[14] A Complaints Committee is not, in the first instance, directed to conduct a hearing. Rather it undertakes an investigation, as it considers appropriate (see Justices of the Peace Act, s. 11(7)). When its investigation is complete, the Complaints Committee must dispose of the complaint by:

a) dismissing the complaint if it is frivolous, an abuse of process or outside the jurisdiction of the Complaints Committee; b) inviting the justice of the peace to attend before the Complaints Committee to receive advice concerning the issues raised in the complaint or send the justice of the peace a letter of advice concerning the issues raised in the complaint, or both; c) ordering that a formal hearing into the complaint be held by a hearing panel; or d) referring the complaint to the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.

(See Justices of the Peace Act, s. 10(1), which authorizes the Justices of the Peace Review Council to establish rules of procedure for complaints committees and hearing panels and the Rules of Procedure promulgated thereunder at p. 27, s. 7.1)

[15] To be clear, and for the assistance of Mr. Ling, we repeat that the jurisdiction of the Justices of the Peace Review Council is limited to the investigation and review of complaints about the conduct of a justice of the peace. It does not have the authority to consider complaints about the exercise of judicial discretion, including how a justice of the peace applies the law or assesses the evidence. It does not have the authority to change or overturn a judicial decision.

[16] In its decision letter, the Complaints Committee correctly stated that the Justice of the Peace’s assessment of the evidence and the decision to find Mr. Ling guilty and impose a fine were matters of judicial decision-making and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the Justices of the Peace Review Council. His avenue to challenge such findings was the appeal process.

[17] There is nothing in the record that supports the concerns raised by Mr. Ling as to the process taken in the initial proceeding or before the Council, the reasons provided by the Council and the determinations made by the Complaints Committee. The investigation undertaken complied with the direction found in the legislation and the applicable rules, and the decision made was reasonable in the circumstances.

[18] The evidence that the Complaints Committee relied on was the transcripts of the proceeding of all the matters heard by the Justice of the Peace on the day in question. Nothing was hidden, concealed or not available to Mr. Ling.

[19] A review of those transcripts makes clear that the Justice of the Peace was fair, measured and considered in her approach not just to Mr. Ling, but to all of those who appeared in front of her on that day. She did not, as Mr. Ling complained, treat him differently than the others, and she did not discriminate against him. Notably, she did not refuse to hear his concerns about what was said on the ticket he received before proceeding to a trial. It was only after she realized that his concern was with respect to the substance of the offence and not the form of the ticket that she required him to plead and proceed to trial. She exhibited no bias and did not discriminate against him in any way. Therefore, it was reasonable for the Complaints Committee to determine that the allegations respecting her behaviour did not demonstrate any misconduct.

[20] In addition, as the Complaints Committee correctly noted, many of the complaints made by Mr. Ling were outside Council’s authority.

[21] Therefore, there is no basis for judicial intervention on judicial review.

The Issue of Standing

[22] In its factum and argument, the Justices of the Peace Review Council submitted that Mr. Ling was without standing to bring this application for judicial review.

[23] Despite the able argument of Ms. Rothstein, there is no need for this Court to consider this submission, given what has been said on the merits of the application.

Conclusion

[24] For the reasons above, the application for judicial review is dismissed. The Council does not seek costs, and none are awarded.

Swinton J.

Lederer J.

Doyle J.

Released: October 22, 2021