Tran v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director
CITATION: Tran v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2023 ONSC 3207
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOS.: TBA
DATE: 20230529
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: TRAN v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
HEARD: In Writing, In Chambers
ENDORSEMENT
[1] By endorsement dated April 3, 2023, this court ordered as follows (2023 ONSC 2098, para. 28):
a. This application is dismissed without costs as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process pursuant to R. 2.1.
b. Ms Tran may not commence or continue any proceeding in the Divisional Court without first obtain permission to so do from an administrative judge of the Divisional Court, or her designate. Such permission shall be sought by way of letter from Ms Tran, no longer than three pages in length, to which is attached no more than ten pages of additional documents in support of the request.
[2] On April 5, 2023, Ms Tran wrote directly to me, by email, as follows (highlighting and bold in original):
Mr. Corbett,
In light, First (1st). you released an allegation order. I have several OIPRD matters before this court. What is the court file number for this allegation order? Otherwise, you are confusing me and the parties on your alleged order.
Second (2nd), who is the party brought in writing motion before the court without I aware of it?
Third (3rd), what is an early motion schedule date return the court to set aside the above allegation order before the motion judge or panel?
Fourth (4th), who I can escalate this complaint about your conduct? Please reply ASAP.
Regards,
Jenny
[3] At my direction, court staff responded to this email on April 5, 2023, as follows:
Your email to Justice Corbett has been forwarded to me for response.
You may not communicate directly with a judge of the court by email. You have been directed not to do this multiple times. In future, the court may disregard any communications sent by you in violation of this direction, without response.
The decision provided to you yesterday is a final decision of the Divisional Court. There is no further recourse from this decision in the Divisional Court. Your recourse, at this point, is a motion for leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Any complaint you wish to make about the conduct of Justice Corbett may be made to the Canadian Judicial Council ("CJC"). The web site for the CJC is here: The work of the Council (cjc-ccm.ca). The web site contains information on how to contact the Council and how to file a complaint.
You have no outstanding proceedings in the Divisional Court at present. You commenced an application against the OIPRD last summer, and that complaint was dismissed on November 1, 2022. Your subsequent application respecting the OIPRD was dismissed yesterday, as set out in Justice Corbett's decision.
You now may not commence or continue any proceedings in the Divisional Court without first obtaining permission, in accordance with para. 28(b) of Justice Corbett's decision.
[4] Since this time, Ms Tran has emailed the court (in most instances, also directly sending copies to me) on a further eleven occasions repeating and amplifying her inquiries. The court has advised her, repeatedly, that the court will not provide a further response. The court has advised her repeatedly not to communicate directly with me (or with any judge).
[5] The court is not required to advise parties about their appeal rights from the court’s decisions, but the court does so as a courtesy, and, in this case, to assist a self-represented litigant navigate the justice system. Where a party expresses an intention to make a complaint about a judge, the court will provide the party with information about where to make that complaint. The court is not required to provide legal advice to parties about appeals and complaints, or to defend or explain its advice to parties on these topics.
[6] Ms Tran’s proceedings in this court against the OIPRD are now concluded. Her recourse from the court’s recent decision has been explained to her. The court will not explain its decisions further.
[7] Ms Tran claims that court staff at the Ontario Court of Appeal have expressed uncertainty about the appeal rights that flow from this court’s decision. If Ms Tran provides copies of this court’s R. 2.1 decision to Court of Appeal staff, any difficulty should be addressed easily. The R. 2.1 decision is not a decision of a “motion judge”, but rather is a final disposition from the Divisional Court, appealable with leave to the Ontario Court of Appeal: Courts of Justice Act, s. 6(1)(a). It is a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court, rather than a panel, because all R. 2.1 matters in Divisional Court have been directed to be heard and decided by a single judge of the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 21(2)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act, a procedure that has been in place for many years.
[8] Ms Tran’s repeated vexatious communications with court staff are an unwarranted use of staff time. Henceforth, all communications from Ms Tran shall be sent to a Divisional Court judge, and ordinarily no response to those communications will be provided to Ms Tran. I am seized with this task, and if I am unavailable, then communications from Ms Tran should be sent to an administrative judge of the Divisional Court or their designate.
“D.L. Corbett J.”
Released: May 29, 2023