COURT FILE NO.: CR 22-013 MO

DATE: 2022/09/01

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

– and –

NELSON SHAUN RUNNALLS

Applicant

M. Mazurski, for the Crown

Self-represented

HEARD: April 14, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION

M.G. Ellies R.S.J.

OVERVIEW

[1] In this application, Mr. Runnalls seeks an order quashing a decision made by Del Frate J. of this court nearly 19 years ago.

[2] On October 14, 2003, Del Frate J. declined to hear two applications relating to proceedings held earlier in 2003, in which Noble J., also of this court, dismissed an appeal and an application brought by Mr. Runnalls. In the present application, Mr. Runnalls alleges various Charter breaches, including violations of his Charter rights by the Crown, the police, his own criminal defence lawyer, the judge who convicted him, and also by Del Frate J. himself. Mr. Runnalls seeks an order purging his criminal record and awarding him damages.

[3] For the following reasons, Mr. Runnalls’ application is dismissed and the Crown is invited to consider seeking an order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, declaring Mr. Runnalls a vexatious litigant should he ever apply again to this court for any relief relating to this application or the proceedings referred to in it.

BACKGROUND

[4] The background facts are not at all obvious from the application record. Rather, they came out during my questioning of Mr. Runnalls and during the Crown’s submissions. They have also been taken from decisions of the Ontario Review Board and the Ontario Court of Appeal relating to Mr. Runnalls, to which I will refer below. In addition, following the hearing, I requested and have since reviewed the relevant Superior Court files from the Gore Bay courthouse.

[5] Although the date is not clear from the materials I have reviewed, most likely in 2002, Mr. Runnalls was convicted by Lalonde J. of the Ontario Court of Justice of eight Criminal Code offences and sentenced to 120 days in custody. He appealed the convictions and sentence. As well, he brought an application for certiorari relating to a warrant issued on March 3, 2003, by a justice of the peace. Both the appeal and the application were dismissed by Noble J. on June 5, 2003, for reasons delivered orally.

[6] Mr. Runnalls then brought two further applications in this court seeking to overturn the decisions of Noble J. On October 14, 2003, for reasons delivered orally, Del Frate J. declined to hear the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

[7] Roughly eight year later, Mr. Runnells brought a motion under s. 123(4) of the Courts of Justice Act, alleging that Del Frate J. had failed to render a decision in October 2003. The motion was dismissed on March 28, 2011, by Gauthier R.S.J., who held that Del Frate J. had, indeed, rendered a decision: Runnalls v. Ont. Superior Court, 2011 ONSC 1844.

[8] Mr. Runnalls brought this application eleven years later, in 2022. In the application, he seeks:

An order quashing the October 14, 2003 decision, a correct decision inserted and an order of prohibition regarding my drivers licence and other government status, sending my appeals through the court system, reimbursement of my rights, and appropriate financial compensation with regard to the enormous savings that the government has made regarding the lawful changes incurred from this matter.

ISSUES

[9] Mr. Runnalls’ application gives rise to a number of issues, delay not being the least of them. However, I need only address one: jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS

[10] As Mr. Runnalls submits, this is an application for judicial review. He seeks an order for certiorari and an order of prohibition. These extraordinary remedies are used by courts of inherent plenary jurisdiction, such as the Superior Court of Justice, to correct errors of jurisdiction made by statutorily created lower courts and tribunals.

[11] With one potential exception, one Superior Court judge has no jurisdiction to grant an extraordinary remedy in connection with the decision of another. As the author of Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada, E.G. Ewaschuk, 2d ed., looseleaf (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2022) writes, at para. 26.9:

Jurisdictional error by a superior court is not subject to review by way of prerogative writs even in provinces where the court of appeal is empowered to hear prerogative writs at first instance, e.g., Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Nor is jurisdictional error by one superior court subject to review by another superior court of the same province. [Citations omitted.]

[12] The one potential exception to this rule arises in cases where the decision of a Superior Court judge is challenged on a constitutional basis and there is no other effective remedy: R. v. Sheppard, 2001 4391 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 1. However, I have not been able to find a single case in which such a remedy has been granted by one Superior Court judge with respect to the decision of another. There is no basis upon which to conclude that this should be the first. Mr. Runnalls has failed to demonstrate that there is or, rather, was no other effective remedy. For that reason, the application must be dismissed.

[13] However, given the history of this matter and the relief claimed in it, more may be necessary than a simple dismissal.

[14] Between 2001 and 2004, Mr. Runnalls accumulated an unenviable criminal record. Over that period, he was convicted of six counts of assault and fifteen counts of breach of probation, among other things. This is the criminal record he seeks to expunge in this application.

[15] The long list of criminal convictions on Mr. Runnalls' record includes a conviction for assault entered on February 12, 2001, following a trial before Cohen J. of the Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. Runnalls appealed that conviction to the Superior Court of Justice. His appeal was dismissed by Trainor J. because Mr. Runnalls had failed to file transcripts of the trial. Mr. Runnalls appealed Trainor J.’s decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. That appeal was also dismissed: R. v. Runnalls, [2002] O.J. 3953.

[16] Mr. Runnalls challenges this conviction again in this application.

[17] As it turns out, Mr. Runnalls has significant mental health issues. In June or August 2004, Mr. Runnalls was found not criminally responsible in connection with further charges of failing to attend court and resisting arrest: Runnalls (Re), [2004] O.R.B.D. No. 1208. He remained in psychiatric custody from 2004 to 2016, when he was granted an absolute discharge by the Ontario Review Board (the “ORB”): Runnalls (Re), [2016] O.R.B.D. No. 2169.

[18] Mr. Runnalls’ psychiatric detention was reviewed by the ORB each year between 2004 and 2016. In 2015, the board wrote in Runnalls (Re), [2015] O.R.B.D. No. 1960, at paras. 17-20:

After being found Not Criminally Responsible for the Index Offences in August 2004, Mr. Runnalls was detained at the NBRHC. His original diagnosis was dementia due to multiple etiologies, alcohol dependence, nicotine dependence, and cannabis abuse together with his history of a closed head injury. Mr. Runnalls maintained that he had been unjustly treated by the legal system. He told his treating psychiatrist that his concerns regarding the legal system occupied his time 24 hours a day, seven days a week and that it "engulfs" him. Mr. Runnalls offered that he tried to forget about that concern with the legal system by "hitting the booze".

Mr. Runnalls went on to state his unshakeable belief that he has been responsible for making major changes to the social/legal system and as a result of all of the medication he has been required to take against his will, he will receive a substantial amount of money. That no amount of teaching by the treating psychiatrist would shake Mr. Runnalls' belief in the conspiracy against him (sic) and he remained adamant that he did not suffer from a mental illness.

Mr. Runnalls maintained that position throughout his hospitalization and spent a great deal of his time involved with preparation of legal briefs to appeal various decisions issued by the Ontario Review Board. Mr. Runnalls has appealed almost every one of the Ontario Review Board Decisions recently with the sole exception of the 2014 Disposition.

Throughout the years, Mr. Runnalls maintained his unshakeable belief that he had been the victim of the courts, the Government, the Ontario Review Board and even of members of the treating team. Attempts to educate Mr. Runnalls by the Treatment Team about his delusion of persecution were to no avail.

[19] Although Mr. Runnalls was eventually discharged after the board found he no longer posed a danger to the public, this application demonstrates that he continues to ruminate about the legal system in general, and the convictions in the Ontario Court of Justice referred to above, in particular.

[20] Our court does not have the resources to indulge this sort of behaviour. Our backlog of cases in the Northeast Region has reached a historic high due to the pandemic. Meritless proceedings like this one take valuable time away from meritorious ones.

CONCLUSION

[21] For the foregoing reasons, the application is dismissed.

[22] Should Mr. Runnalls bring any further proceedings in this court relating to this application or any of the proceedings referred to in it, the Crown is invited to consider applying under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act for a declaration that Mr. Runnalls is a vexatious litigant.

M.G. Ellies R.S.J.

Released: September 1, 2022

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

N

ELSON SHAUN RUNNALLS

REASONS FOR DECISION

M.G. Ellies R.S.J.

Released: September 1, 2022