Franklin v. Law Enforcement Agency, 2025 ONSC 4732
CITATION: Franklin v. Law Enforcement Agency, 2025 ONSC 4732
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO. DC-24-00000688-00JR
DATE: 20250815
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Evah Franklin, Appellant
AND:
Law Enforcement Complaints Agency and the Attorney General for Ontario, Respondents
BEFORE: Nakatsuru J.
COUNSEL: Self-represented Applicant
Pamela Stephenson Welch, for the Respondents
CONSIDERED IN WRITING at: Toronto, August 15, 2025
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The applicant has been given notice that the Court is considering making an order staying or dismissing these proceedings under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Ms. Franklin is seeking to judicial review a decision by the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) to dismiss a complaint she made to them.
[2] Ms. Franklin provided submissions in response. They were received July 9, 2025.
[3] I have carefully considered her submissions as well as the record filed on this judicial review application.
[4] Under r. 2.1, this court may stay or dismiss a proceeding that appears to be on its face frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process: Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, at para. 18. The power to dismiss an appeal under r. 2.1. is to be used only in “the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process”: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 81 C.P.C. (7th) 258, at para. 8.
[5] It would appear from her materials that the decisions that Ms. Franklin seeks to review are the following. The first decision is not specifically referred to by Ms. Franklin. Moreover, she is out of time to judicially review that decision. However, I have considered it as a part of the context that I should consider.
[6] In a letter dated March 27, 2024, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) summarizes the complaints she was making to be the following:
The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) has reviewed the above noted complaint and determined it to be a conduct complaint against Deputy Chief Steve Bell of the Ottawa Police Service from May 13, 2013 to February 23, 2024.
In your complaint, you stated that Deputy Chief Bell confessed to keeping you from employment, housing and friendships. You alleged that Deputy Chief Bell contaminated your food and beauty products, infected you with live viruses/bacteria and burned off your hair. You explained that you became aware of this in January 2024 and since 2021, you kept hearing that Deputy Chief Bell is an evil and vile man. While you noted that you heard someone on the phone shout "girl let me help you, please let me help you", you later went to the police station to ask who Deputy Chief Bell was. For context, you described that you believe you knew Deputy Chief Bell when you were a teenager and people have been afraid of you because of him. You also raised several other allegations against him, including that he would send people vile messages about you, would share stolen photos, had thieves break into your residence and forced you into relationships with men who abuse you.
On February 29, 2024, you sent an email to our office where you alleged that your identity was swapped out with a Nigerian prostitute, you want Deputy Chief Bell to be removed from law enforcement as people are afraid of you because of him and you do not know who Deputy Chief Bell is, but you would like to be compensated for life.
[7] The OPIRD concluded:
In determining whether your complaint concerning Deputy Chief Bell would proceed to an investigation, the Director has considered the information provided. We understand that this matter is of concern for you. However, there is no information in your complaint about any specific interactions that you may have had with Deputy Chief Bell during the timeline provided. Rather, it does not appear that Deputy Chief Bell had any direct involvement in this matter as you mentioned that you do not know who he is and provided incident dates that span over ten (10) years. The allegations that you have raised throughout your complaint against Deputy Chief Bell overall appear to be broad, lack in air of reality and are speculative in nature. For these reasons, the Director has determined not to proceed with an investigation into your complaint as it has been deemed to be frivolous. Accordingly, this file is now closed.
[8] In a letter dated September 13, 2024, LECA summarized the complaint Ms. Franklin was making at that time:
The Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) has reviewed your complaint and determined it to be a conduct complaint about Deputy Chief Steve Bell of the Ottawa Police Service from May 1, 2021, to July 23, 2024.
In your complaint, you alleged that you have experienced identity theft for over two decades, particularly since May 2013 when you arrived in Canada. You explained that your identity was stolen and given to a Nigerian prostitute and you have since been contacting banks to stop removing funds from your accounts. You stated that you notified the banks that these matters are with the police for murder, corruption, and bribery. However, you are waiting for Deputy Chief Bell and the Nigerian prostitute to be arrested and charged. You expressed that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and other international authorities have been involved in your matters and you need separate police numbers for your reports of sexual assault against an individual named Mher. Further, you questioned how a pedophile became a Police Chief and noted that Deputy Chief Bell has no authority over you. Overall, you want the RCMP to cooperate with foreign authorities to clear your name.
[9] LECA determined that Ms. Franklin’s complaint was frivolous within the meaning of s. 158(1)(d)(i) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, S.O. 2019 c. 1 Sch. 1 on the grounds there was an insufficient basis for her complaint (it was speculative and lacking in substance or an air of reality), there was no jurisdiction to review RCMP matters, and that her complaint was essentially the same as the one dismissed on March 27, 2024.
[10] Ms. Franklin now brings a judicial review application against LECA’s decision. In her notice of application, she sets out the following grounds for judicial review:
(a) LECA fully denied all allegations I have made, despite all the evidence and fail to take into consideration I am a victim of identity theft. LECA refusal to investigate my claims and threats against my life have placed the lives of many people in danger.
(b) My Stolen credentials were given to a Nigerian prostitute named Patricia and she was made a professor at the University of Toronto teaching African Drama and Arts. I have had to live a life of poverty ad (sic) distress. Steve Bell is on camera admitting how he contaminated my hair and beauty products, and he burned my hair off. I was shocked as to why the manager of the Slough Council Parking shop was, herein Canada as a Police Chief.
(c) I was also informed men and women would be sent to befriend me under file (sic) pretences and videotape the assaults that they would be awarded money, I have reported several stranger assaults here in Ontario and BC.
(d) On March 15, 2024, I was given an identity theft reference number, I was informed to give the banks the police file fraud# VA24-l 120-56 and to fax the banks and creditors a letter asking them to clear my credit history, restore my credit history and stop removing funds from my account. Every time, I move these individuals would break in steal my ID papers and create hostile home and work environments for me. My stolen ID papers and pictures have been used by these individuals to extort others for money in romance scams.
(e) Steve Bell has admitted to impersonating a police office before becoming one in Canada, this is major fraud and abuse of public trust This man was so forgettable to me, all I remember about him was that his wife was pregnant and there was another manager at the Slough Council parking shop called Ian McDonald over 25years ago. I have no idea why this man disliked me so much.
[11] In her submissions in response to the r. 2.1 notice, Ms. Franklin has set out the various hardships and injustices she has suffered in her life, but her arguments do not address in any meaningful way the issue of whether this proceeding should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
[12] In my view, it is abundantly clear that this attenuated process is the right way to proceed. Ms. Franklin’s grounds of review essentially repeat her allegations which when looked at objectively has little or no basis in reality. Moreover, there is no reason to question LECA’s decision to proceed in the fashion that it did. In the circumstances, it was entirely reasonable.
[13] Responding more specifically to one of Ms. Franklin’s submissions, it is irrelevant that Justice Shore, acting as a case management justice, set up a schedule for the hearing of the judicial review application. Justice Shore made no findings or determination regarding the merits of Ms. Franklin’s judicial review. Nor in setting up a hearing, does that mean resort to r. 2.1 is precluded.
[14] These proceedings are dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Nakatsuru J.
Released: August 15, 2025