Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Ade Olumide
CITATION: Ontario v. Ade Olumide, 2016 ONSC 6198 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-542148 DATE: 2016-10-12
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Applicant AND: Ade Olumide, Respondent
BEFORE: Pollak J.
COUNSEL: Domenico Polla, for the Applicant Ade Olumide, self-represented Respondent
HEARD:
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is a motion brought by the Respondent Mr. Olumide, pursuant to rule 37.13(2)(b) and s.97 and 109 of The Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. The relief requested is as follows:
"4. Judicial Notice of legislative fact that lack of honest belief in jurisdiction is judicial misconduct, s7 Metrolinx Act “that agree to participate” grants freedom of choice to not agree to Presto, Judicial Notice of Fact that the difference in total Presto cost in the 2012 Ontario Auditor General Report and 2012 Grant Thornton Value for Money Audit/2012 Justice Coulter Fairness Report is about $600 million, a public interest proceeding for certiorari/prohibitory order/mandamus for Ontario ADM Shared Services to fulfill a promise to respond to Mr Olumide, is prima farcie with reasonable grounds.
- Declaration that since Respondent consents to the fact that September 25 order of Ontario Court of Appeal is binding on lower courts AND application for a certiorari of clauses to take cities’ freedom of choice and prohibitory order for use of reports were never heard, allowing an s140 application to be heard is an unconstitutionally overbroad breach of rights against criminal code violator reprisal on criminal code victim principle of fundamental justice AND public interest prosecutor s12 Charter rights/Canadian Bill of Rights 2(b)(e)/rights against cruel treatment principle of natural justice.”
“3. Declaration that since Respondent consents to the fact that September 25 order of Ontario Court of Appeal is binding on lower courts AND application for a certiorari of clauses to take cities’ freedom of choice and prohibitory order for use of reports were never heard, allowing an s140 application to be heard is an unconstitutionally overbroad breach of rights against criminal code violator reprisal on criminal code victim principle of fundamental justice AND public interest prosecutor s12 Charter rights/Canadian Bill of Rights 2(b)(e)/rights against cruel treatment principle of natural justice, therefore s140 is also unconstitutionally overbroad.” [sic]
And also, judicial notice of the following:
“6. Judicial Notice that David Chen shop keeper case “outrage” shows societal consensus on rights against criminal reprisal on a victim principle of fundamental justice which led to Bill C-26.
Judicial Notice of Legislative Fact that Bill C-26 Citizen’s Arrest and Self-Defence Act criminal code “34(3)… threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something … 35(1) lawfully assisting a person …on reasonable grounds that another person…is about to take property …for the purpose of preventing another person from taking … property” shows societal consensus on rights against criminal reprisal on victim principle of fundamental justice.
Judicial Notice that crown prosecutors affirmed legality of criminal code cause of action drafted by two Justices of the Peace by staying the charges due to lack of identity card of the criminals.
Judicial Notice of 4 OPP investigations of Ontario (windmill, Sudbury, gas plants, ORNGE), shows; Bill C26 self-defence due to lack of OPP or Toronto police investigation is reasonable, systemic discrimination in white collar crime law enforcement, a black person under 4 police drug crime investigations would not be allowed to bring an s140 reprisal against a victim” [sic]
[2] The Application (CV-15-542148) pursuant to s.140 of The Courts of Justice Act (the “Act”) brought by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (“AGO”), is scheduled to be heard on October 17, 2016. Another Applicant in court file number CV-15-542602 is also requesting relief pursuant to s.140 of the Act.
[3] On April 4, 2016, Justice Firestone ordered that both the above-noted Applications pursuant to s.140 of the Act be heard on the same day and he ordered a timetable to be followed for both Applications.
[4] The Respondent sought to vary the timetable ordered by Justice Firestone. On June 27, 2016, Justice Archibald ordered the following:
“• motion to strike vexatious litigant application: and vexatious litigant
• Oct 17 2016 one day constitutional argument
• preemptory to Mr. Olumide.”
[5] The file number referred to on the order of Justice Archibald is file number CV-15-542602, which is not the Application under which the Respondent has brought this motion. The AGO submits that the substance of this motion (the “constitution issues”) should be dealt with by the Applications Judge, on October 17, 2016.
[6] Mr. Olumide, however, argues that his motion must be heard today before this Court before the Applications are heard.
[7] I agree that the issues raised in this motion are in substance, the defence raised by Mr. Olumide to the Applications. The “constitutional issues” raised in his motion today should be heard before the Applications Judge because the Applications cannot be successful if Mr. Olumide’s constitutional argument succeeds. This applies to both of the Applications which will be heard by the court on October 17, 2016.
[8] The AGO submits that Justice Archibald’s order is that the “constitutional issues” which the Respondent seeks to have the court to adjudicate on today, be heard at the hearing of the Applications.
[9] The Respondent, however, argues that the order of Justice Archibald only applies to the other Application which is not before the Court in this motion and that the only order the Court can consider today is the one made by Justice Firestone, directing that both matters be heard on the same day, and also directing a timetable, which was subject to Mr. Olumide’s right to request an amendment to that timetable.
[10] Mr. Olumide also argues that his motion can be considered as “a request for an amendment to that timetable”. I disagree. This issue is not addressed by Mr. Olumide in his motion.
[11] When the court considers all of the facts surrounding the scheduling of these matters, it is clear that the intent of the court (through Justice Firestone’s Order) was that both Applications be heard on the same day by the same judge. It is also clear that Justice Archibald's Order was meant to apply to both Applications. Further, it is against the interests of justice to have the constitutional issues determined by this court today and then to again be determined by another court on October 17, 2016 at the hearing of the Applications. As well, there is another interested party, the Applicant in file CV-15-542602 which has not been given notice of this motion.
[12] Mr. Olumide’s motion is therefore dismissed. The “constitutional issues” he raises on this motion with should be heard by the Applications Judge.
Costs
[13] I have considered the submissions of the parties, and have taken into account the factors set out in Rule 49 and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. I am required to award costs that are reasonable and fair. See Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.).
[14] The AGO requests costs of $500.00. Mr. Olumide asks for costs that are far in excess of $500.
[15] As the successful party, I believe that an award of $500.00 inclusive of disbursements and GST payable by Mr. Olumide to the AGO is reasonable and fair having regard to the above-noted factors, and I so order.
Pollak J.
Date: October 12, 2016