CITATION: R. v. Konjarski, 2015 ONSC 3999
COURT FILE NO.: M35/15
DATE: 20150619
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
– and –
JEKLINA KONJARSKI
Applicant
Ted Ofiara, for the Crown
Jeklina Konjarski, appearing in person
HEARD: June 15, 2015
Trotter J.
[1] This case is about an application for a peace bond.
[2] On July 31, 2014, His Worship Justice of Peace L. Phillips received an information under s. 810 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] and issued a summons compelling Ms. Konjarski to appear before the Ontario Court of Justice.
[3] Ms. Konjarski disputes the validity of the summons, as well as the peace bond proceedings. She seeks an order in the nature of certiorari, pursuant to s. 774 of the Criminal Code, to quash the summons.
[4] In order to succeed, Ms. Konjarski must establish jurisdictional error on the part of the justice of the peace: see R. v. Forsythe (1980), 1980 CanLII 15 (SCC), 53 C.C.C. (2d) 225 (S.C.C.) and R. v. Vasarhelyi (2011), 2011 ONCA 397, 272 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 204. While Ms. Konjarski has advanced a number of grounds in support of her position, none of them amount to jurisdictional error. Instead, they relate to the merits of the complainant’s allegations and the authenticity of her stated fear.
[5] The transcript of proceedings before the learned justice of the peace demonstrates that he heard the complainant’s allegations under oath. He asked clarifying questions. Upon being satisfied that he should receive the information, he issued a summons, as he was required to do.
[6] There is no basis to conclude that the justice of the peace exceeded or failed to exercise his statutory jurisdiction under the Criminal Code. Proceedings under s. 810 are different from the more elaborate procedure under s. 507.1 (private prosecutions). Section 507.1 provides for a pre-enquete hearing before process may issue: see McHale v. Ontario (Attorney General) (2010), 2010 ONCA 361, 256 C.C.C. (3d) 26 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused 259 C.C.C. (3d) iv. However, this procedure does not apply to proceedings under s. 810 (see s. 507.1(9)). Upon receipt of an information, s. 810(2) provides that the justice “shall cause the parties to appear before him or before a summary conviction court having jurisdiction in the same territorial division.”
[7] In this case, having carefully considered the complainant’s allegations, and after satisfying himself that it was proper to receive the information, the justice of the peace was required to issue the summons. There is no inkling of bias on the part of the justice of the peace. Similarly, none of Ms. Konjarski’s Charter rights have been infringed.
[8] Ms. Konjarski may well have valid arguments about why she should not enter into a recognizance under s. 810(3) of the Criminal Code. However, those issues must await resolution at a hearing on the merits, not by way of certiorari.
[9] The application is dismissed.
Trotter J.
Released: June 19, 2015
CITATION: R. v. Konjarski, 2015 ONSC 3999
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
– and –
JEKLINA KONJARSKI
Applicant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Trotter J.
Released: June 19, 2015