Court File and Parties
CITATION: Douris v. Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, 2025 ONSC 1668
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 518/24
DATE: 2025-03-14
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Andrew David Douris, Moving Party
AND: Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, Responding Party
BEFORE: O’Brien J.
COUNSEL: Andrew Douris, self-represented Moving Party Colin Bourrier, for the Responding Party
HEARD by videoconference at: Toronto: March 12, 2025
Endorsement
[1] Mr. Douris has brought an application for judicial review against the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), alleging that the decision not to investigate his complaint against a detective of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) was unreasonable. On this motion, Mr. Douris seeks to compel LECA to add documents to its record of proceeding (ROP) on the application.
[2] Mr. Douris has filed several complaints with LECA. The complaint that led to this judicial review, which was dated May 13, 2024, will be referred to as the “current complaint.” In the current complaint, Mr. Douris alleged that Detective Petrie of the TPS relied on two forged documents to support his findings related to an investigation into a complaint by Mr. Douris dated May 23, 2023. In the May 23, 2023 complaint, Mr. Douris alleged that TPS failed to investigate an assault and harassment that occurred on the University of Toronto campus. The LECA Complaints Director referred the complaint to the TPS for investigation and Detective Petrie was assigned to conduct the investigation. Ultimately, based on Detective Petrie’s investigative report and findings, the TPS chief of police found the alleged misconduct was unsubstantiated.
[3] Mr. Douris then requested that the Complaints Director review the reasonableness of the investigation and of the findings of the TPS chief of police. That review process is currently underway.
[4] Mr. Douris also filed an earlier complaint, dated March 15, 2024, against Detective Petrie. The March 15, 2024 complaint was “screened out”, meaning that under s. 60(1) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 (PSA),[^1] the Complaints Director decided not to “deal with” the complaint. At the time it was made, one of the individuals relevant to the complaint was the subject of criminal charges. Once those charges were resolved, Mr. Douris resubmitted his allegations as the current complaint. The March 15, 2024 complaint is not before the court, but Mr. Douris advises it is identical to the current complaint.
[5] On this motion, Mr. Douris seeks to compel LECA to add three internal confidential documents (a complaint analysis form, an alternate process form and an investigator’s appendix) arising from the March 15, 2024 complaint to the ROP. Counsel for LECA has advised that an investigator’s appendix does not exist for the March 15, 2024 complaint, so there remain two documents in issue. Mr. Douris also initially sought to compel the LECA to include other documents in the ROP, but those issues were resolved in case management on the basis that Mr. Douris could add them to his own application record.
[6] Mr. Douris claims the two documents should be produced for two primary reasons: (1) The ROP should include the material that was “before” the decision-maker, rather than the material that was “put before” the decision-maker. He considers the March 15, 2024 complaint material to have been “before” the Complaints Director because LECA had separately addressed that complaint; and (2) The material from the March 15, 2024 complaint is relevant and should be included because it could have a bearing on the outcome of this judicial review application.
[7] I decline to order LECA to include the disputed documents in the ROP.
[8] Judicial review is not a de novo hearing. The question is whether the statutory decision was justified based on the facts and law before the decision-maker. Discovery of documents is not available on judicial review: Lachance v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2023 ONSC 7143, at para. 15.
[9] I disagree that the ROP must include material that was “before,” but not “put before” the decision-maker. Administrative tribunals are typically dealing with many files at any given time. In some cases, like this one, they may have several files initiated by the same applicant/complainant. The administrative decision-maker is not required to produce all documents in its possession that were not put before, or considered, by the decision-maker in an individual case.
[10] Mr. Douris’ central argument is that the disputed documents ought to have been included in the record because they are “directly relevant” to the screening decision, as described in Endicott v. Ontario (Independent Police Review Office), 2014 ONCA 363, at para. 42. Mr. Douris underscores that his notice of application refers to the March 15, 2024 complaint.
[11] The problem with this submission is the notice of application only refers to the March 15, 2024 complaint by way of background and context to Mr. Douris’ other allegations. It does not rely on that complaint as a substantive basis to support his allegations that the Complaints Director’s decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
[12] Mr. Douris’ arguments on this motion focus primarily on the case analysis form. He notes that, in the case analysis form for the current complaint, LECA staff recommended screening the complaint in and referring it to the same or another police service for investigation. Mr. Douris says that the Complaints Director’s decision to screen the complaint out in these circumstances shows a reasonable apprehension of bias. Mr. Douris submits if the complaint analysis form for the March 15, 2024 complaint also recommended screening the complaint in, the Complaints Director’s decision to screen the complaint out would be further evidence of bias against him.
[13] I am not persuaded by this argument. First, it is speculative because Mr. Douris has not provided any information that specifically leads him to believe the case analysis form recommended screening the March 15, 2024 complaint in. However, if I accept this is likely because it would be consistent with the case analysis of the current complaint, it would only be a repetition of the same points and would add little to a review of the Complaints Director’s current decision. What is directly relevant is what happened in the current decision. Mr. Douris has the case analysis form for the current complaint, and his bias argument remains available to him.
[14] Finally, Mr. Douris raised an argument in response to LECA’s submission that the appropriate process to obtain the documents he seeks is through a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 (FIPPA). Mr. Douris says that he has made such a request and that, once the documents are received, he can add them to his own application record. He submits it therefore would make sense to avoid that process and order LECA to produce them now.
[15] There are at least two problems with this argument. First, it is unknown whether the records will be produced to Mr. Douris in the FIPPA process. Second, if they are produced, Mr. Douris would need to persuade the court they should be added to the record under the limited circumstances provided by the test in Keeprite Workers’ Independent Union et al. and Keepright Products Ltd., 1980 1877 (Ont. C.A.). In short, it is not automatic that the documents would be available and added to the record. This is not a basis to circumvent the limits on compelling the production of documents from LECA.
[16] The motion is dismissed. LECA seeks costs of $794. Mr. Douris acknowledges these costs are reasonable. Therefore, Mr. Douris shall pay $794 to LECA.
O’Brien J.
Date: March 14, 2025
[^1]: On April 1, 2024, the PSA was repealed and replaced with the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 1, Sched 1 (CPSA). However, the PSA continues to apply to all matters arising before April 1, 2024, including this complaint. The Complaint Director under the CPSA exercises the powers and duties of the Independent Police Review Director under the PSA.