Scott Childs

The court directed the Registrar to give the applicant notice that it was considering quashing his Notice of Constitutional Question as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the Notice was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior decision, failed to state a proper basis for a constitutional violation, improperly challenged the Charter itself, and was replete with scandalous, abusive, and racist language.

The Notice was quashed, with leave granted to serve a fresh, proper Notice consistent with the court's directions on civility and legal coherence.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review challenging a screening decision by the OIPRD not to investigate a complaint against the Toronto Police Service.

The applicant subsequently delivered a Notice of Constitutional Question.

The OIPRD requested that the Notice be dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court directed the Registrar to give notice to the applicant that the court is considering quashing the Notice of Constitutional Question, giving the applicant fifteen days to respond.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding a finding of misconduct for the unlawful arrest of a videographer during the G20 summit.

The applicant argued the Commission erred in its standard of review and that the Hearing Officer's reasons were inadequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the reasons were adequate for appellate review and that the finding of misconduct was reasonable given the lack of good and sufficient cause for the arrest.