Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Martinez v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2022 ONSC 887
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: CVD-TOR-53-20JR
DATE: 2022-02-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
R.D. GORDON, L. SHEARD, S. SHORE JJ.
BETWEEN:
Alex Martinez Applicant
– and –
Office of the Independent Police Review Director Respondent
Alex Martinez, acting in person
Morvarid Shojaei, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: January 31, 2022
DECISION ON APPLICATION
R.D. GORDON, J.
Overview
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decisions of the Independent Police Review Director (the “Director”) to screen out three complaints he filed against identified and non-identified members of three police forces.
Background
[2] The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (“OIPRD”) is an independent civilian oversight agency that receives, manages, and oversees complaints about municipal, regional, and provincial police in Ontario. The Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 (“PSA”) sets out the Director’s powers and duties, as well as the public complaints process.
[3] Section 60(4) of the PSA provides that the Director may decide not to deal with a complaint made by a member of the public if, in his or her opinion: (1) The complaint is frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith; (2) The complaint could be more appropriately dealt with, in whole or in part, under another Act or other law; or (3) Having regard to all the circumstances, dealing with the complaint is not in the public interest.
[4] Rule 6.4 of the OIPRD Rules of Procedure recognizes that determining whether a complaint is or is not in the public interest will always involve a balancing of interests and a broad range of considerations including, among other things, the effect of a decision to deal or not to deal with a complaint on public confidence in the accountability and integrity of the complaints system, the seriousness of the complaint, including the seriousness of the harm alleged, whether there are issues of systemic importance or broader public interest at stake, and whether another venue, body or law can more appropriately address the substance of the complaint. Rule 6.5 provides specifically that it is not in the public interest to deal with a complaint that does not, on its face, disclose a breach of the PSA or the Code of Conduct.
[5] This judicial review application deals with three complaints made by the applicant which will be referred to as the Hamilton Police Service Complaint, the Niagara Regional Police Service Complaint, and the Peel Regional Police Complaint.
The Hamilton Police Service Complaint
[6] On September 4, 2019, Mr. Martinez filed a complaint against Constable Geske of the Hamilton Police Service. Specifying an incident date of January 5, 2015, he alleged that Constable Geske had acted negligently and potentially fraudulently by not responding to him in a timely and professional fashion. He further alleged that the officer was involved in corruption and scandal.
[7] Between September 23 and October 3, 2019, Mr. Martinez sent three emails to the OIPRD raising other issues. In two of these emails, he asked the OIPRD to help resolve his family dispute. In the third e-mail he named staff or officers with the RCMP, the City of Winnipeg Police Service, the Calgary Police Service and Winnipeg Family Services whom he alleged were “preying” on women and children and “contaminating, spraying and infecting them.”
[8] On October 9, 2019, an OIPRD case coordinator emailed Mr. Martinez to ask him to provide additional information about the complaint and explain his four-year delay in filing it.
[9] In reply, Mr. Martinez alleged that law enforcement officers were involved in misconduct and child abuse, refused to answer the case coordinator’s questions, and insisted that she consult the two documents that he attached to his reply. One document was a copy of a Damage/Mischief to Property (under $5000) report that he had filed online with the HPS. The report alleged that Mr. Martinez’s brother had barred Mr. Martinez from seeing his brother’s children and had reported him to the police and others. The second document he attached was a series of e-mails, one from Constable Geske advising that Mr. Martinez’s report was not suitable for online submission and asking him to call the HPS to file his report, and seven replies from Mr. Martinez in which he insisted that the HPS accept his report as-is, asked for updates, and criticized the officer.
[10] Mr. Martinez subsequently emailed the OIPRD case coordinator several more times, repeating the allegations and statements he had previously made.
[11] In a letter dated November 14, 2019 Mr. Martinez was advised that the Director had determined it was not in the public interest to investigate this complaint. The letter explained that Constable Geske’s only involvement with him was to respond to his Online Police Report and refer him to the Hamilton Police Service communications department for further consideration and that those actions did not rise to the level of misconduct defined by the PSA and its regulation.
The Niagara Regional Police Service Complaint and Peel Regional Police Complaint
[12] On April 30, 2020, the OIPRD received a complaint from Mr. Martinez concerning the Niagara Regional Police Service (“NRPS”). He indicated on the form that an incident took place on January 27, 2020 at the Scotiabank Convention Centre. He claimed that the NRPS failed to respond, rejected a report, and colluded with other police forces to commit fraud and embezzlement. He also claimed that the OIPRD complaint form was deficient because it did not allow him to upload supporting documents and that “this case is part of an ongoing investigation into the performance and legitimacy of your organization as well.”
[13] On May 27, 2020 Mr. Martinez filed a complaint against the Peel Regional Police (“PRP”). He claimed that it failed to respond to and investigate a report he had filed online in relation to his removal from a 7/11 store at Pearson Airport on April 10, 2020 which, he claimed, was “another incident of systemic abuse and harassment that occurred for successfully investigating a municipal corruption case in Ontario and several other provinces.” He alleged that the PRP did not investigate his complaints and was “now accused of participating in embezzlement, financial fraud, medical abuse, infanticide, harassment, acceleration of death and other crimes.” He also again took issue with the OIPRD’s online complaint form.
[14] On June 25, 2020 an OIPRD case coordinator emailed Mr. Martinez asking that he clarify and provide information concerning these two complaints. In an effort to better understand what his complaints were, she asked for a summary of what he had reported to the police that had given rise to the complaints. Mr. Martinez replied on June 30, 2020 stating that the NRPS and PRP had “failed to respond,” were “in breach of their duties,” and that the OIPRD had details about the matter.
[15] In a letter dated July 7, 2020 OIPRD advised Mr. Martinez that without the specific information it had requested of him there was insufficient information to make an objective assessment that misconduct was committed by members of the NRPS and that it would not be in the public interest to carry out an investigation.
[16] In a letter dated September 9, 2020 OIPRD advised Mr. Martinez that it would not be investigating his complaint against PRP. It advised that without being provided with the specific information it had requested of him there was insufficient information to make an objective assessment about whether misconduct was committed by members of the PRP. With respect to his having been removed from the 7/11 store by officers Mr. Martinez was advised that it was unlikely an investigation would result in grounds to believe misconduct was committed and, as such, no investigation was warranted.
Jurisdiction
[17] The court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to ss. 2(1) and 6(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1.
Standard of Review
[18] The standard of review for the screening decision of the Director of the OIPRD is reasonableness. In conducting a reasonableness review the court is to focus on the decision the administrative decision-maker actually made, including the justification offered for it. A court applying the reasonableness standard does not ask what decision it would have made in place of the administrative decision maker, attempt to ascertain the range of possible conclusions, conduct a new analysis or seek to determine the correct solution to the problem. Instead, the reviewing court must consider only whether the decision made by the decision-maker, including both the rationale for the decision and the outcome to which it led, was unreasonable. [See Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65].
Analysis
[19] The Director’s broad power to screen out complaints provides balance to the ease with which complaints may now be made. It protects the integrity of the complaints system by ensuring that available resources are not directed to complaints for which there is, among other things, tenuous supporting evidence. [See Endicott v. Ontario (Independent Police Review Office), 2014 ONCA 363 at para. 30].
[20] The Director’s reasons for screening out a complaint need not be lengthy nor complex, but the complainant and the court are entitled to know the rudiments of the explanation for why the complaint will not be investigated. [See Wall v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2014 ONCA 884].
[21] The decision letters provided by the Director fairly summarized the complaint(s) made, the statutory framework within they could be considered, the steps taken to obtain the information necessary to assess the complaints and the reason the complaints would not or could not be pursued. For those complaints for which sufficient detail existed, the Director determined no breach of the PSA or any police code of conduct was indicated. For the various other complaints including corruption, embezzlement, harassment, infanticide, acceleration of death and other crimes, Mr. Martinez either refused to or was unable to provide the information necessary to warrant further investigation. Absent such information it was not in the public interest to dedicate investigative resources to the complaints.
[22] In these circumstances, the decisions made by the Director were reasonable. They were based on internally coherent reasoning that was both rational and logical; they were not untenable in light of the relevant factual and legal context in which they were made.
Conclusion
[23] The application for judicial review is dismissed. As the Respondent did not seek costs, none are ordered.
R.D. Gordon J.
I agree _______________________________
L. Sheard J.
I agree _______________________________
S. Shore J.
Released: February 9, 2022
CITATION: Martinez v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2022 ONSC 887
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: CVD-TOR-53-20JR
DATE: 2022-02-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
R.D. GORDON, L. SHEARD, S. SHORE JJ.
BETWEEN:
Alex Martinez Applicant
– and –
Office of the Independent Police Review Director Respondent
DECISION ON APPLICATION
Released: February 9, 2022