2024 ONSC 3150
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 113/24
DATE: 20240607
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Backhouse, Lococo and Myers JJ.
BETWEEN:
KHALIQ HUSSAIN ANWAR
Applicant
– and –
THE OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Respondent
Rami Madhoun, for himself
Heather Mackay, for the Independent Police Review Director
HEARD BY TELECONFERENCE: June 3, 2024
BY THE COURT:
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background and Jurisdiction
[1] Mr. Anwar asks the court to review the decision of the Independent Police Review Director dated February 13, 2024.
[2] In the decision, the Director declined to proceed with Mr. Anwar’s complaint. The complaint was screened out for being “frivolous.” The Director noted that this does not mean that the complaint was brought in bad faith. Rather, a “frivolous” complaint is one that cannot succeed.
[3] Mr. Anwar’s complaint to the Director related the service level provided to him by Toronto Police Service. In essence, Mr. Anwar complains that the Toronto Police did not adequately investigate his complaint that CSIS was conducting an unlawful campaign of surveillance and attacks upon him.
[4] The Director summarized the complaint as follows:
Briefly, you state that the basement house where you lived with other tenants was under illegal electronic surveillance by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). You reported it to the police many times through email. On the night of December 27, 2023, the house basement caught fire. You state that at the time of the "attack," you were sleeping. You contacted 911 and the fire department attended. You state that the CSIS was using technology through satellite directed energy weapon for surveillance, tracking, torture, and harassment toward yourself and other minority racial groups. You also state that white people who control every resource in this country are so evil and full of hatred against the minority, and that they do not care if they burned you alive in the basement. You state that you filed a complaint with the Office of the Chief of Police and 55 Division of the TPS on December 29, 2023, and January 10, 2024. Both the Chief's office and the 55 Division did not register and investigate your complaint, and because of their inaction, suffered from the fire attack by the CSIS.
[5] The Director explained:
We understand that this matter is of great concern to you, and the police did not provide you with the results that you felt were appropriate. However, please note that with regards to police investigations, the police are provided with discretion to determine whether the information provided to them should be investigated or not, how the matter should proceed, or whether the matter requires further action. In light of the information provided, the Director has determined that your complaint is frivolous. Among other things, your belief that you were under CSIS surveillance and ultimately attacked in the basement in which you asked the police to register and investigate your complaint for that purpose lacks an air of reality.
[6] Mr. Anwar has sought documentary discovery from, the Director in this proceeding. He challenges the Director’s decision declining to proceed with his complain for being unreasonable.
Court’s Jurisdiction
[7] This Court has jurisdiction over this application pursuant to ss. 2(1) and 6(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1.
Standard of Review
[8] The decision of the Director is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653.
[9] In considering the reasonableness of a decision, the reviewing court first examines whether the reasons provided by the decision maker establish an intelligible justification for the decision in a transparent manner: Vavilov, at para. 99.
[10] The court will consider whether decision maker’s reasoning process is internally rational. Then, the court will also consider whether the decision is unreasonable because it is “untenable in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on it”: Vavilov, at para. 101. This may include, among other things, considering the governing statutory scheme, the evidence before the decision maker, the parties’ submissions, the past practices and decisions of the administrative body, and the potential impact on the individual to whom it applies: Vavilov, at para. 101; see also Thales DIS Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Transportation), 2023 ONCA 866, at paras. 91-94.
Analysis
[11] Mr. Anwar reports that he has marks on his body and that he has been unable to work as a result of the torture he suffers at the hands of the Federal Government here and in Pakistan. He asks the court to decide if he is being tracked and tortured by government satellites and directed energy weapons, and, if not, to explain the symptoms that he reports.
[12] We are not able to respond to either request, however. The role of the court is limited to reviewing the reasonableness of the Director’s decision not to deal with Mr. Anwar’s complaint.
[13] The court understands that Mr. Anwar believes that government officials are working together to hurt him and to deny victims’ rights more generally. He includes in his application record decisions by other tribunals denying him similar relief. What was missing below, however, was any evidence, or even a preliminary indication that evidence exists, to give his allegations an air of reality. Rather, Mr. Anwar includes in his application medical reports indicating that there is reason to believe that his concerns are not objectively provable despite his honestly held beliefs.
[14] Mr. Anwar also asked to see correspondence between CSIS and the Director to try to establish impropriety in the handling of his complaint by the Director. There is no basis for the court to order documentary discovery to be provided by the Director in this application. Matheson J. gave directions declining to grant disclosure orders. She held that the applicant could raise document issues in his reply submissions before the panel. We have seen no basis to order further production by the Director in connection with a screening decision: see Endicott v. Ontario (Independent Police Review Office), 2014 ONCA 363, 373 D.L.R. (4th) 149, at paras. 28-29.
[15] In our view, the Director has provided clear and rational reasoning behind the decision to screen out Mr. Anwar’s complaint. The Director deferred to the broad discretion of the police to decide whether to investigate complaints. The Director also referred to the lack of an air of reality to important elements of the complaint. The Director was not required to investigate further at the screening stage. The screening decision is contemplated by the statutory scheme. There are no applicable constraints to render the decision unreasonable.
[16] This application is therefore dismissed without costs.
Backhouse J.
Lococo J.
Myers J.
Released: June 7, 2024
2024 ONSC 3150
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 113/24
DATE: 20240607
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Backhouse, Lococo and Myers JJ.
BETWEEN:
KHALIQ HUSSAIN ANWAR
Applicant
– and –
THE OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Court
Released: June 7, 2024