CITATION: R. v. Deveaux, 2026 ONSC 0008
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: His Majesty the King v. Matthew Deveaux, Defendant (Applicant)
BEFORE: Justice C.T. Hackland
COUNSEL: Cecilia Bouzane, for the Crown Matthew Deveaux, self represented Applicant
HEARD: October 30, 2025 (Cornwall)
Procedural Ruling (Mandamus application)
1The applicant Matthew Deveaux seeks judicial review, by way of mandamus, of a Refusal Order of a Justice of the Peace. In the Refusal Order the learned Justice of the Peace disallowed a private prosecution sought by the applicant under section 504 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 against two officers of the Cornwall Police Service who had arrested the applicant on August 8, 2021.The mandamus application has not yet been heard but the applicant seeks certain procedural orders to facilitate his intended submissions when the mandamus hearing occurs.
2The Refusal Order reflects that the applicant claimed, based on specific incidents that occurred on the date of arrest and on two subsequent dates, that both officers engaged in conduct that breaches their statutory duties and obligations and amounted to, as he puts it, “corruption, oppression, concealment of evidence and abuse and excess of authority”. He has requested that a private information be issued and a pre-enquete heard for some 22 offences he alleges were committed in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada.
3In a recent case, the same applicant, Mr. Deveraux, sought a mandamus order against the Director of the Special Investigations Unit, seeking to set aside the Director’s decision and to compel the Director to lay criminal charges against the same 2 police officers arising from the same incident. The applicant’s application for mandamus was dismissed by Justice Holowka of this court, see Lafleur, Degray v. D., 2025 ONSC 2526. Justice Holowka also made interlocutory rulings on similar issues which the applicant raises in the present case, see Lafleur v. M.D. [2025] O.J. No. 1843. In particular, Holowka J. quashed two subpoenas issued by Mr. Deveaux against officers Lafleur and Degray.
4The matter before the SIU arose from a roadside altercation between the applicant and the same two police officers in which the applicant was arrested and tasered and restrained and taken by the officers to a hospital. Justice Holowka described the incident leading to the SIU investigation, as follows:
[Mr. Devereux] alleges that while at the Cornwall Community Hospital, he was searched by the police, during which time he was sexually assaulted. On August 8, 2021, the Cornwall Police Service (CPS) informed the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) that they had information in which it was alleged that a CPS officer had sexually assaulted M.D. As a result of receiving this information, the SIU investigated. Based on his assessment of the evidence, the SIU Director found that there were no reasonable and probable grounds to believe that [one of the officers] committed a criminal offence in connection with the allegation.
5The applicant in the present case has requested the Justice of the Peace to initiate proceedings against the two officers for assault and sexual assault and many related offences all said to arise from the roadside incident and the subsequent Cornwall Police and SIU investigations. The substance of these allegations against the two officers has already been brought before the court in the mandamus application heard by Justice Holowka in which he adjudicated on and dismissed the applicant’s mandamus application. This was the same incident involving, in substance, the same allegations against the same two police officers. The present mandamus application is clearly an attempt, in significant part, to re-litigate the issues before Holowka J. and constitutes a collateral attack on Holowka J’s ruling. As such, the present application is vexatious and constitutes an abuse of process. For this reason alone the two officers ought not to be examined in the present application and any subpoenas issued against them must be set aside.
6Further, the Applicant has not established that the witnesses he wants to subpoena are likely to have evidence material to the determination of the mandamus application. A virtually identical issue was before Holowka J. in the Lafleur, Degray v. D., in which Mr. Deveaux’s request to examine witnesses in aid of his mandamus application in that case was dismissed. I am of the view the same principles apply in the case at bar.
7The applicant also seeks to have a subpoena issued against Sgt. McIntosh of the Cornwall police. He seeks to question him regarding the investigative material (that he is seeking production of) from the Cornwall Police Service’s internal investigation, on the allegation it was not conducted in good faith. The applicant also seeks to subpoena Inspector Michaud of the Cornwall Police who is alleged to have made statements in connection with the investigation which were false and made in bad faith “to conceal organizational awareness of liability.” The issues before the Justice of the Peace were whether to allow preliminary steps to be taken against the two officers by way of private criminal prosecution. Sgt. McIntosh and Inspector Michaud were involved only in subsequent investigations and in interactions with the SIU and their actions were not relevant to matters properly before the Justice of the Peace.
8The case law confirms that a mandamus application is not a de novo hearing, but rather a judicial review of the original decision maker’s decision, in this case, the decision of the Justice of the Peace. The question that will be before the court is whether the decision is justified, based on the evidence she reviewed. The viva voce testimony of the two arresting officers and of Sgt. McIntosh and Inspector Michaud was not before the Justice of the Peace and therefore falls outside the narrow scope of review on a mandamus application. Subject to a few exceptions, fresh evidence is not admissible on a mandamus application: see, Wijayaratnam v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2021 ONSC 6303 (Div. Ct.), at para. 27. See also Lovell v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry), 2022 ONSC 423 (Div. Ct.), at para. 5. For the same reason, in an application for judicial review, there is no right to insist on general discovery of the respondent…nor does judicial review afford a right to documentary discovery, see Lachance v Ontario (Solicitor General), 2023 ONSC 7143 (Div. Ct.) at para. 15.
9I also respectfully agree with the Crown’s submission that compelling officers Lafleur and Degray to testify at a mandamus hearing dealing with whether they should be charged with criminal offences would be a violation of their constitutional rights against self incrimination under sections 11(c) and 13 of the Charter.
Disposition
10For the foregoing reasons, the court dismisses the applicant’s application herein for subpoenas for officers Lafleur, Degray, McIntosh, and Michaud and for production of the internal investigation the Cornwall Police Service conducted of officers Lafleur and Degray or of Investigative files of the SIU investigation.
11However, nothing in this endorsement shall be interpreted to prevent reference being made in argument to any documentation in the file of the Justice of the Peace in this matter, or to anything she considered in the course of her ruling. I will also permit the applicant to rely on a 67 second cell phone video which he presented to the court in argument and which could assist the court in appreciating the altercation which resulted in the police becoming involved in the matter and which may have given rise to the accused being placed under arrest.
12Cornwall trial co-ordination is requested to set a date for argument of the applicant’s mandamus application herein, which will proceed in accordance with this endorsement.
Justice Charles T. Hackland
Date: January 5, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Deveaux, 2026 ONSC 0008
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-0058-OOMO
DATE: 2026/01/05
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: His Majesty the King v. Matthew Deveaux, Defendant
COUNSEL: Cecilia Bouzane, for the Crown Matthew Deveaux, self represented Defendant
ENDORSEMENT
Justice Charles T. Hackland
Released: January 5, 2026