|
Police - Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA). Douris v. Ontario (Law Enforcement Complaints Agency)
In Douris v. Ontario (Law Enforcement Complaints Agency) (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a police complaint JR, here respecting "the decision dated July 8, 2024 (the “Screening Decision”) of the Complaints Director of the respondent Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (the “LECA”)".
Here the court dismisses a set aside motion, this of an earlier JR record motion [under CJA 21(5)] (now coupled with this JR since the court route is the same):[3] The applicant also seeks to set aside the decision of Justice Shaun O’Brien of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 14, 2025, reported at 2025 ONSC 1668 (the “ROP Decision”). In the ROP Decision, O’Brien J. dismissed the applicant’s motion to compel the LECA to add certain internal LECA documents to the record of proceeding (“ROP”) for the judicial review application. The disputed documents were prepared in connection with another complaint that the applicant made about the conduct of the same police officer.
...
[32] In Endicott, at paras. 39-46, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered what should be included in the ROP for judicial review of a screening decision relating to a police conduct complaint. The court decided that in that case, a “full and accurate record” did not extend beyond the applicant’s complaint and attachments, the screening decision and the information in the Complaints Director’s file that was directly relevant or part of the screening decision. In the ROP Decision, at paras. 10-11, the motion judge rejected the applicant’s submission that Endicott supported his position about the appropriate scope of the ROP in this case. We see no error in her reaching that conclusion.
[33] Absent narrow exceptions, judicial review applications are decided solely on the record that was before the underlying decision maker for the decision: see Boua v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2024 ONSC 2172, 173 O.R. (3d) 165 (Div. Ct.), at para. 8. The narrow exceptions were established in Keeprite Workers' Independent Union and Keeprite Products Ltd. (1980), 1980 CanLII 1877 (ON CA), 29 O.R. (2d) 513 (C.A.), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [1980] S.C.C.A. No. 16262 (cited by the motion judge in the ROP Decision, at para. 15). The Keeprite exceptions allow an applicant to deliver affidavit evidence to supplement the record in limited circumstances. The applicant provided no such affidavit evidence in this case, instead advancing speculative submissions about the disputed documents’ contents. . Douris v. Ontario (Law Enforcement Complaints Agency)
In Douris v. Ontario (Law Enforcement Complaints Agency) (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a police complaint JR, here respecting "the decision dated July 8, 2024 (the “Screening Decision”) of the Complaints Director of the respondent Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (the “LECA”)".
The court notes the police complaint regime LECA revision at 01 April 2024:B. Complaints Director’s statutory authority
[8] At the time of the applicant’s prior complaints, the Independent Police Review Director was responsible for managing complaints by members of the public about the conduct of police officers in Ontario under statutory authority derived from Parts II.1 and V of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 (the “PSA”).
[9] On April 1, 2024, the PSA was repealed and replaced with the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 1, Sched. 1 (the “CSPA”). The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (the “OIPRD”) continued under the name of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency. The Independent Police Review Director became the Complaints Director, who is the LECA’s head: CSPA, ss. 130(1), 130(2).[1] Under s. 216(3) of the CSPA, the Complaints Director exercises the powers and duties of the Independent Police Review Director with respect to (a) police conduct complaints made prior to April 1, 2024, and (b) complaints about police conduct occurring prior to (and not continuing after) April 1, 2024. Such complaints (including the applicant’s May 2024 Complaint) continue to be dealt with in accordance with the PSA as it read prior to its repeal: CSPA, ss. 216(1), 216(2). The OIPRD Rules of Procedure (amended February 2024) made under s. 56 the PSA (the “Rules of Procedure”) continue to apply to those complaints. . Watt v. Ontario (Law Enforcement Complaints Agency)
In Watt v. Ontario (Law Enforcement Complaints Agency) (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court reviews the OIPRD to LECA police complaint regime transition:[6] At the time of Dr. Watt’s complaint, the Independent Police Review Director was responsible for managing complaints by members of the public about the conduct of police officers in Ontario under statutory authority derived from Parts II.1 and V of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 (the “PSA”).
[7] On April 1, 2024, the PSA was repealed and replaced with the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 1, Sched. 1 (the “CSPA”). The OIPRD continued under the name of the Law Enforcement Review Agency (the “LECA”) and the Independent Police Review Director became the Complaints Director, who is the LECA’s head: CSPA, ss 130(1), 130(2). For complaints made prior to April 1, 2024, the Complaints Director exercises the powers and duties of the Independent Police Review Director: CSPA, s. 216(3). Such complaints (including Dr. Watt’s complaint) continue to be dealt with in accordance with the PSA as it read prior to its repeal: CSPA, s. 216(1). The OIPRD Rules of Procedure (amended February 2024) made under s. 56 the PSA (the “Rules of Procedure”) continue to apply to those complaints. . Deveaux v. Cornwall Police Services
In Deveaux v. CORNWALL POLICE SERVICES (Div Court, 2024) the Ontario Divisional Court considered a JR, here where a self-presenting complainant to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) sought a review of LECA's suspension of it's investigation while a related civil case was resolved. This in the context of a situation where "the Crown withdrew the charge right before the cross-examination of a police witness", and the complainant submitted "that he has proof that officers who arrested him lied to the SIU initially and in court during his trial".
Here, Myers J essentially pleads with respondent lawyers involved to take the case in hand and "lead the clients to a fair outcome and not simply make the process impenetrable and inaccessible":[24] I obviously have no idea at this stage whether there is truth to Mr. Deveaux’s complaints. But someone among the government respondents should know. Watching a self-represented party try to understand and valiantly battle the procedural complexities thrown up by the phalanx of legal talent being brought to bear by government leads me to wonder how someone who truly has a provable claim can be expected to ever access civil justice.
[25] I am not sure I understand the war in which this proceeding is just one battle. Shouldn’t our police services be transparent and accountable to the public whom they serve? Are there documents or recordings that people know will prove the truth of the claims one way or the other? Is there a public interest in having them produced to answer the questions raised in these proceedings? If Mr. Deveaux’s allegations are not true, shouldn’t those involved be publicly exonerated? If they are true, shouldn’t those involved be accountable? In whose interest is requiring motion after motion after motion and three or more different legal proceedings to access evidence that will resolve an issue about alleged police misconduct pro or con? Who can afford the battles let alone the war of attrition being waged?
[26] I can only express the hope that if there is a lawyer who knows the truth of the allegations, that he or she will lead the clients to a fair outcome and not simply make the process impenetrable and inaccessible. Our system of justice is built upon the principle that lawyers are duty-bound to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing. They are not just champions for the rich and strong. See: Law Society of Ontario, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.1-1: The lawyer’s duty to fearlessly raise every issue for their cleint [sic] is to be performed, “in a way that promotes the parties' right to a fair hearing in which justice can be done.” . Liu v. London Police Service
In Liu v. London Police Service (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR of "the decision of the Chief of Police of the London Police Service (LPS), and the unreported decision of the Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), formerly known as the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), confirming the Chief’s decision.":Request for OIPRD review
[15] On March 9, 2024, the applicant requested that the Director of the OIPRD conduct a review of the Chief’s decision, pursuant to s. 71 of the Police Services Act.
OIPRD becomes LECA
[16] On April 1, 2024, the Police Services Act was repealed and replaced with the Community Safety and Policing Act, S.O. 2019, c.1, Sched. 1. The Community Safety and Policing Act created the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) which replaced the former OIPRD. LECA is an arms-length agency of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General that is tasked with investigation of public complaints about the conduct of police officers in Ontario.
Complaints Director’s decision
[17] On April 17, 2024, the Complaints Director with LECA wrote to the applicant setting out his decision confirming the decision of the Chief of Police that the allegations of misconduct were unsubstantiated. In his decision, the Complaints Director advised that, given the request for review had been made prior to April 1, the Director had conducted the review pursuant to s. 71 of the Police Services Act.
....
Standard of Review
[22] The decision of the OIPRD (LECA) is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), 2019 S.C.C. 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653.
|
