|
Judicial Review - Prerogative Remedies - Prohibition [JRPA 2(1)1]. Grey v. Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council
In Grey v. Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against the dismissal of a JR "application for prohibition to prevent a provincial offence prosecution in the Ontario Court of Justice for offences under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002", which was granted on abuse of process grounds:[2] ... Prohibition is a remedy to address a lower court or tribunal proceeding without jurisdiction. None of the arguments raised by the appellants to challenge the prosecution are jurisdictional. The Ontario Court of Justice is the appropriate forum to determine whether the provisions of the MVDA under which the appellants are charged apply to the conduct alleged in the Information. Further, to the extent the appellants allege that the respondent as a prosecutor is engaging in an abuse of process, the Ontario Court of Justice is also the appropriate forum to raise that issue.
[3] The appellants’ application for prohibition is an ill-conceived attempt to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Superior Court for non-jurisdictional issues which are properly decided at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The motion judge was correct in concluding that the prohibition application was an abuse of process and had no prospect of success. . Herbert v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Herbert v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2021) the Federal Court of Appeal considered, but denied, an unusual judicial review request for a 'writ of prohibition':[18] Finally, there are no circumstances in the present matter that could justify the issuance of a writ of prohibition. It is trite that writs of prohibition are issued by reviewing courts to direct a lower court or an administrative decision maker not to proceed with a matter that does not fall within its jurisdiction (Guy Régimbald, Canadian Administrative Law, 3rd ed. (Toronto, LexisNexis, 2021) (Régimbald) at 592; D.J.M. Brown and J.M. Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Canvasback Publishing, 2009) (looseleaf updated 2021) at 1:4). This is obviously not the case here as it is well within the Board’s jurisdiction, as a trier of fact, to set its own procedure and determine evidentiary issues (the Act at s. 146(1); Régimbald at 324-325; see also Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. Larocque, 1993 CanLII 162 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 471, 101 D.L.R. (4th) 494, at 487). This is not disputed.
|
