Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Josemar Brooks Plaintiff
AND:
Cecelia Fearon-Forbes, Daniel Brandes and the Attorney General of Ontario Defendants
BEFORE: Associate Justice Josefo
COUNSEL: Josemar Brooks, self-represented Plaintiff
Daniel Zacks & Angeli Yuan Hao Li, for the Defendant Cecelia Fearon-Forbes
Spencer Nestico-Semianiw, for the Defendants Daniel Brandes and Attorney General of Ontario
HEARD: January 7, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
The Motions and the Issues:
1These three motions (and the above-listed parties) were before me on January 7, 2026, as follows:
The plaintiff Mr. Brooks (“plaintiff”), moves for leave to continue his action, presently stayed pursuant to section 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 ("CLPA").
Defendant Fearon-Forbes seeks to set aside her being noted in default by plaintiff.
Brandes & the AG similarly seek to set aside their noting in default by plaintiff.
2During his submissions, the plaintiff agreed that the defaults should be lifted, noting that, as a self-represented individual, he is still learning about the appropriate procedure.
3On January 7, 2025, Justice Pollak ordered that these three motions be heard together by an Associate Justice. They were subsequently assigned to my Motions list for January 7, 2026.
Factual Underpinnings:
4This case begins with the March 30, 2014 arrest and charging of the plaintiff with assault of a police officer as well as with domestic assault of his common law partner. On March 31, 2014, the plaintiff was released on a surety recognizance. A term of his release, common in cases where domestic violence is alleged, is that the plaintiff has no contact with his domestic partner other than in the presence of his surety.
5On April 19, 2014, officers who were part of the team arresting him on March 30th, apparently saw the plaintiff with his domestic partner yet without his surety. Thus, it was believed that he was in breach of the terms of his recognizance. Police charged the plaintiff with breach of a recognizance. His arrest involved violence on his part, including his allegedly attempting to damage the police cruiser into which he was placed. The charges against him included resisting arrest, and damage under $5,000.
6He was transported to a police division where, unfortunately, the camera supposed to be filming the sally port area was apparently not working. The plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by police outside of camera view. His case arising out of his April 19, 2014 arrest proceeded to trial on several non-consecutive days in 2015 (June 17-19; October 1, 2015).
7At the trial, there was an apparently effective cross-examination of police witnesses by Ms. Fearon-Forbes, the plaintiff’s then defence counsel, now a defendant herein. Brandes, the Assistant Crown Attorney prosecuting the case against the plaintiff, also a defendant herein, was “troubled” by the answers given by some police witnesses. Thus, Brandes recommended on day four of the trial (October 1, 2015) to the trial Judge, Justice Rutherford, that the charges against the plaintiff be dismissed. Brandes also recommended that the plaintiff and his then domestic partner each enter into a peace bond for two months. This was in lieu of continuing the prosecution, given concern on the part of Brandes that something untoward, including possibly an assault by police, happened to the plaintiff at the time of his April 19th arrest. Given the lack of a working camera, as Brandes had stated in court in October 2015, nobody would, however, know for certain what did happen to plaintiff on that day.
8Justice Rutherford accepted the recommendation from Brandes, as did (at the time) the plaintiff. The plaintiff apparently hand-wrote his acceptance of a peace bond to commence October 1, ending on December 1, 2015, pursuant to tab 6 of the responding record of Brandes and the AG. In his submissions before me, the plaintiff asserted, when shown the document, that this was not his handwriting.