|
Complaints - Police. O'Driscoll v. Canada (Attorney General)
In O'Driscoll v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against the dismissal of a JR "as it did not challenge a matter within the scope of section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 (Federal Courts Act). The Federal Court also dismissed the appellant’s application for mandamus as the appellant failed to identify a public legal duty to act on the part of the respondent Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Commissioner."
The court considered what is JR justiciable, here in an RCMP police complaint context:[12] As the Federal Court noted, a matter that fails to affect legal rights, impose legal obligations, or cause prejudicial effects is not reviewable (Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 133 at para. 29; Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority at paras. 24, 29; Democracy Watch v. Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, 2009 FCA 15, 175 A.C.W.S. (3d) 303 at paras. 9-13, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 33086 (11 June 2009) [Democracy Watch 2009]). The Commissioner’s lack of response to the appellant’s June 19th email did not constitute a reviewable decision as it did not affect the appellant’s legal rights, impose legal obligations, or have prejudicial effects. The appellant had no legal right to be provided with answers to her questions, the Commissioner had no legal duty or obligation to respond to the appellant’s questions, and the non-response did not have prejudicial effects.
[13] The same reasoning applies to the OISP review. The Commissioner was under no legal duty to conduct an internal review of the allegations, nor do the results of that review, if any, affect the appellant’s legal rights.
[14] The appellant places considerable emphasis on the importance of judicial review to ensure that public officers conduct themselves according to law and argues that judicial review is the only way in which the RCMP can be held accountable for what she says was misleading the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
[15] This argument parallels that made by the appellant in Democracy Watch, 2009 where it was argued that the failure of the Ethics Commissioner to undertake an investigation harmed public confidence in the integrity of government decision making. The argument was rejected by this Court which concluded that the Ethics Commissioner had no duty to investigate beyond that prescribed by statute. The refusal to investigate did not affect the applicant’s rights and the Ethics Commission was under no statutory duty to act on the applicant’s request.
[16] Where Parliament creates a formal complaints procedure with a concomitant duty on an agent of Parliament or public officer to investigate, it does so expressly (Canada (Attorney General) v. Democracy Watch, 2020 FCA 69 at paras. 32-35). In establishing the CRCC process, Parliament did not create a general complaints procedure that gave rise to a legal obligation on the Commissioner to respond to demands beyond the scope of what is required by statute, such as many demands set forth in the June 19th email. By statute, the appellant had a right to file a complaint, to have it investigated and to receive a response, which she now has. I note, parenthetically, that the question whether the appellant, who was neither the spouse nor the mother at the center of the domestic and child abuse allegations, had standing to file a complaint was not raised before us.
[17] The RCMP delivered its report on the two complaints on January 25, 2024. It addressed each of the appellant’s 14 allegations in considerable detail. The report concluded:Please be advised that pursuant to section 45.64 of the RCMP Act, I am notifying you that the investigation into this complaint has now been concluded. Furthermore, according to section 45.7(1), if you are not satisfied with the manner in which your complaint has been disposed by the RCMP, you may request a review by the CRCC by writing to them within 60 days after receiving this RCMP Final Report at the following address or online at the following webpage. [...] [18] I turn next to the request for an order of mandamus.
[19] The Federal Court concluded that the appellant did not meet the test for mandamus set out in Apotex. That test requires the appellant establish, inter alia, that the Commissioner owed her a public legal duty to act, and that she has a clear right to the Commissioner’s performance of that duty.
[20] The appellant cites subsection 5(1) of the RCMP Act, which grants the Commissioner the responsibility and authority for the management and control of the RCMP, as the source of the legal right to have the Commissioner respond to her questions and investigate the allegations of systemic misconduct in the Cochrane and Airdrie detachments. The appellant also contends that a public legal duty to act arises from the common law duties of police as described by the Supreme Court in R. v. Godoy, such as preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and the protection of life and property (1999 CanLII 709 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311, 168 DLR (4th) 257).
[21] These arguments fail.
[22] Subsection 5(1) is the source of the Commissioner’s authority for the management and control of the RCMP. Absent an effect on a legally cognizable right or interest, a grant of statutory authority to a public official does not give rise to a legal right on the part of a citizen to require that the associated administrative discretion of management and control be exercised in a certain way, or at all (see, for example, Reisdorf v. Canada, 2023 FCA 188 at para. 8). There is therefore no error in the Federal Court’s finding that "“the Commissioner had no legal obligation to respond within the unilateral, arbitrary and extremely short deadline”" imposed in the June 19th email (Federal Court Decision, at para. 27).
[23] The appellant’s reliance on the common law duties of the police does not assist her position. Whatever the scope of those duties, they do not translate into a positive duty on the part of the Commissioner to respond to the appellant's email. . A. Z. v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director
In A. Z. v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a JR of the dismissal of OIPRD screening, investigation and examination of a complaint of local police misconduct, here regarding their handling of sexual assault allegations. Paras 1-35 are illustrative of police and OIPRD procedures in such matters.
In these quotes the court considers procedural fairness in the OIPRD complaint screening process, here regarding 'reasons for decision' and Baker 'legitimate expectations':Was There a Breach of Procedural Fairness?
[44] The applicant argues that she was denied procedural fairness because she was not provided with reasons for her complaint being sent to the NRPS for investigation, nor was she given the opportunity to make submissions on that issue, despite her legitimate and reasonable expectations that her complaint would be investigated either by the OIPRD or by a different police service.
[45] At the screening stage of the process, the OIPRD is given a broad discretion. In Endicott v. Ontario (Independent Police Review Office), 2014 ONCA 363, 373 D.L.R. (4th) 149, at para. 28, the Court of Appeal stated:It is beyond the scope of this appeal to define what limits or procedural requirements may be imposed by the PSA on a director’s discretion to screen out a complaint. Suffice it to say that the PSA does not contemplate the need for a hearing or notice, nor does it impose any specific procedural requirement. The PSA gives the Director broad discretion to screen out complaints and to do so before any investigation as provided in s. 61 is undertaken. No hearing or proceeding is contemplated at the weeding out stage. [46] As Endicott makes clear, the threshold for procedural fairness at the screening phase is low. The OIRPD was under no obligation to provide a reasoned decision. Nevertheless, it is clear that the process did engage consideration of whether or not the NRPS should be responsible for investigating the applicant’s complaints. Indeed, the OIPRD’s own investigator, Robert Zufelt, expressed the view that investigation of the complaint should be retained by the OIPRD or referred to another police service. Ultimately, however, the senior manager concluded that the complaint did not necessitate the OIRPD either retaining it or referring it to another service. His view was that despite the deficiencies in the investigation, the professional standards unit of the NRPS should be able to conduct a thorough review of the matter, taking into account their own sex assault investigation policies.
....
[50] Similarly, we disagree with the applicant’s submission that she ought to have been given an opportunity to make submissions on the issue of whether the misconduct was “serious” or “less serious.” As further detailed in these reasons, the characterization of the seriousness of the misconduct is for a limited disciplinary purpose: Green v. Toronto Police Service, 2016 ONSC 6433 (Div. Ct.). Under the PSA, the chief of police determines whether the misconduct is serious or not and is not required to consider submissions or provide reasons. Pursuant to s. 71(1) of the PSA, the opportunity for a complainant to make submissions is at the review stage, which the applicant did in this case.
....
Was the Determination that the Misconduct Was Not of a Serious Nature Unreasonable?
[80] The scheme of the PSA is that if, following an investigation, a police chief believes on reasonable grounds that an officer’s conduct constitutes misconduct, the matter will proceed to a disciplinary hearing unless the misconduct is deemed “not to be of a serious nature”.
[81] As the Divisional Court explained in Green v. Toronto Police Service, 2016 ONSC 6433 (Div. Ct.), s. 80(1) of the PSA, which provides that a police officer is guilty of misconduct if they engage in any of eleven categories of proscribed activity, does not characterise any of these categories as “serious” or “not serious”. However, s. 66(4) of the PSA provides that if the chief of police is of the opinion that the misconduct was “not of a serious nature”, the chief of police may resolve the matter informally without holding a hearing if the police officer and the complainant consent to the proposed resolution. Even if the complainant does not consent, the chief may still resolve the matter without a hearing, but subject to certain limitations imposed by s. 66(10) of the Act. The penalties available in that circumstance are set out in s. 85(1)(d),(e), and (f). As Dambrot J. explained in Green, at para. 23:In short, if a chief of police is of the opinion that misconduct is not of a serious nature, at the most the decision takes dismissal and demotion off the table as potential punishment. The limited significance of the characterization of misconduct as not serious informs the interpretation of the term. . Endicott v Independent Police Review Director
In Endicott v Independent Police Review Director (Ont CA, 2014) the Court of Appeal considers whether a decision of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to not pursue a complaint about police behaviour [under PSA s.60] constituted a 'statutory power of decision', here to determine whether the OIPRD had a duty to file their record under JRPA s.10 in a judicial review:Was the Director’s decision the exercise of a statutory power of decision?
[19] The respondent maintains that the Director’s decision was a “decision deciding or prescribing” her “legal rights”. This would bring the Director’s decision squarely within subparagraph (a) of the definition of “statutory power of decision” in the JRPA. (The respondent has not advanced any argument under subparagraph (b).) Both the motion judge and full panel of the Divisional Court agreed. Because the Director’s decision was one that affected the respondent’s rights, when the Director was served with a judicial review application, he was, in the respondent’s submission, required to “file in the court for use on the application the record of the proceedings in which the decision was made.”
[20] The Director, however, argues that the Divisional Court erred in its understanding of the way in which the complaint process operates pursuant to the PSA. Central to the Director’s argument is his position that the complainant does not have a “right” to have a complaint dealt with in any particular way. In the Director’s submission, the PSA gives him broad statutory discretion to “screen out” complaints. This discretion to screen out complaints, when exercised, does not meet the definition of a statutory power of decision. The party making the complaint has no “legal right” that is engaged when the screening process is used by the Director. In the Director’s submission, the decision under appeal runs counter to the established jurisprudence recognizing that discretionary decisions by a tribunal as to whether or not a matter should be investigated are found not to be the exercise of statutory powers of decision.
[21] The Director further submits that because a record of proceedings is not defined in the JRPA, but is defined in s. 20 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA”), a record of proceedings should only be required where the SPPA applies to a decision. For the SPPA to apply to a decision there must have been a “proceeding” as provided in s. 3 of the SPPA, namely a proceeding “where the tribunal is required … to afford to the parties to the proceeding an opportunity for a hearing before making a decision.” Clearly, the Director’s decision to screen out the respondent’s complaints was not a proceeding as contemplated by the SPPA because no hearing was held, nor has it been argued that the Director was under any obligation to afford to the respondent or to any other “party” the opportunity for one. This, in the Director’s submission, lends further support to his position.
[22] The Director maintains that the Divisional Court’s decision would seriously impair his ability to screen out complaints as intended by the PSA. If decisions to screen out complaints are held to be the exercise of a statutory power of decision affecting a complainant’s rights, then, the Director argues, such decisions will be impressed with additional fairness requirements including the requirement to give notice to the complainant and to give the complainant the opportunity to make submissions. This would result in the process being bogged down in unnecessary process and procedure, thereby defeating the intention of the legislature that the complaint process set up under the PSA strike an appropriate balance between the right of a complainant to fairly bring forward a complaint and have it investigated and dealt with properly, while at the same time allowing the Director broad discretion to screen out complaints that are without foundation or that, for other reasons outlined in s. 60, ought not to be pursued.
[23] I would not give effect to the Director’s submissions. In my view, the Divisional Court correctly interpreted the statutory complaint scheme created by the PSA. As I will explain, a proper reading of the relevant statutory provisions makes it clear that a person who lodges a complaint has the right to have that complaint pursued unless a decision is taken by the Director pursuant to the PSA that the complaint should be screened out. The complainant’s right to have the complaint pursued is thereby ended; in other words, the complainant’s legal right is thereby “decided”.
[24] I turn now to the statutory provisions of the PSA. As repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, the “modern principle” of statutory interpretation is that “the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”: Re Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd., 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21 (quoting Elmer Driedger, Construction of Statutes, 2d ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983)).
[25] It is immediately apparent that the statutory provisions of the PSA establishing the complaints procedure and assigning to the Director his role are quite different from the complaint procedures set out in other statutes cited by the Director as being comparable. The Director has, for example, referred the court to s. 75(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (“HPPC”), being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18. The complaint procedure established by s. 75(1) was interpreted in Batacharya v. The College of Midwives of Ontario, 2012 ONSC 1072, and the court determined in that case that a decision by the college’s registrar not to pursue a complaint did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power of decision. The statutory provision in the HPPC, however, does not require the registrar to proceed with a complaint. To the contrary, a decision has to be made for the complaint to be pursued. The wording of s. 75(1) is that “[t]he Registrar may appoint one or more investigators to determine whether a member has committed an act of professional misconduct …” (emphasis added). The discretion is exercised to allow a complaint to be pursued.
[26] By contrast, s. 59(1) of the PSA provides that the Director “shall review every complaint … and shall determine whether the complaint is about the policies of or services provided by a police force or about the conduct of a police officer” (emphasis added). The complainant is therefore assured by statute, that unless the director decides otherwise, the complaint will be pursued. A determination will first be made as to whether the complaint is about a policy or service of the police force or about the conduct of a police officer. Section 59(2) then provides that “[s]ubject to section 60, the Independent Police Review Director shall ensure that every complaint reviewed under subsection (1) is referred or retained and dealt with in accordance with section 61” (emphasis added). Section 61 of the PSA directs how various complaints are to be dealt with on the merits.
[27] The use of “shall” in these provisions, as a matter of both grammatical and ordinary sense and of established legislative usage, imposes statutory obligations on the Director, upon receipt of a complaint from a member of the public, to pursue the complaint. The Director must deal with the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the PSA. His discretion to “screen out” certain complaints is circumscribed and requires a decision. Section 60 provides that the director “may … decide not to deal with a complaint”. Absent a decision by the Director, the complaint must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the PSA. The statute gives the complainant that right. Unlike other statutes such as the HPPC, the Director’s discretion is not in deciding whether he will deal with a complaint. Rather, his discretion is deciding whether to stop a complaint from proceeding in accordance with the process established by the PSA. In fact, all complaints, even those that are susceptible to being screened out pursuant to s. 60 are, absent a decision by the Director to screen them out, dealt with and investigated. The PSA states only that he “may” decide not to deal with a complaint that falls within one of the categories listed in s. 60. Therefore, absent intervention, s. 59 ensures that the complaint will be pursued and investigated in accordance with the process set out in s. 61.
[28] My conclusion that the Director’s decision to screen out the respondent’s complaints is the exercise of a statutory power of decision does not, as the Director suggests, mean that the SPPA applies to that decision or that additional fairness requirements are imposed on the Director in carrying out his screening out function. The respondent’s right to have the complaint dealt with in accordance with the PSA comes with the limits to that right imposed by the PSA. It is beyond the scope of this appeal to define what limits or procedural requirements may be imposed by the PSA on a director’s discretion to screen out a complaint. Suffice it to say that the PSA does not contemplate the need for a hearing or notice, nor does it impose any specific procedural requirement. The PSA gives the Director broad discretion to screen out complaints and to do so before any investigation as provided in s. 61 is undertaken. No hearing or proceeding is contemplated at the weeding out stage. The SPPA, therefore, has no application and the concerns raised by the Director that the complaints process will be bogged down with procedural requirements is without foundation.
[29] My conclusion that the complainant has a right to have the complaint proceed in accordance with the PSA does not mean that the complainant has an unqualified right to have the complaint proceed to the investigation stage. It is presumed that the complaint will proceed to investigation but that presumption is qualified. The legislature has given the Director broad discretion in s. 60 to screen out complaints without an investigation being undertaken.
[30] The Director’s broad power to screen out complaints provides the balance in the complaint procedure that former Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice, the Honourable Patrick LeSage, considered necessary. The changes to the police complaints system that are now the subject of this appeal had their genesis in the report authored by Mr. LeSage: Report on the Police Complaints System in Ontario by Patrick J. LeSage (Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, 2005). Therein, he expressed the view that access to the complaint process should be made easier for those with legitimate complaints about the police but also recognized that increasing access to the complaints system could tax the system’s resources. As he explained, at p. 64:Removing the current systemic barriers to the reception of complaints needs to be balanced by conferring greater discretion on the recipient of complaints to determine whether a complaint should be pursued. There will be cases where the evidence to support a complaint is so tenuous that resources should not be expended to pursue them. Also, there will be cases where the “complaint” is really not one that is suitable for the complaints system to resolve. For example, a dispute as to whether a traffic ticket has been wrongly issued is a matter for the courts. While the current system allows a chief of police’s decisions to not pursue a complaint to be reviewable by OCCOPS, such a review is time intensive and inimical to the efficient resolution of complaints.
Facilitating access should mean the reception of all complaints, but it also requires that judicious screening of complaints be made as early as possible to protect the integrity of the system. [31] Before turning to the second issue, I will respond to the Director’s submission that the decision in Jacko v. Ontario (Chief Coroner) (2008), 2008 CanLII 69579 (ON SCDC), 306 D.L.R. (4th) 126 (Div. Ct.), lends strong support to his position that the exercise of his discretion to screen out a complaint is not the exercise of a statutory power of decision.
[32] In Jacko, the Jacko family asked the coroner to conduct an inquest into the death of their son. When the coroner declined to do so, the family applied for judicial review and sought to have the coroner produce a record of proceedings. Thus, the Divisional Court was faced with the question whether the coroner’s decision not to proceed with an inquest was the exercise of a statutory power of decision within the meaning of s. 10 of the JRPA. Although arising in the context of different legislation, namely, the Coroners Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37, the question before the court in Jacko was the same question posed in the present case.
[33] Section 20 of the Coroners Act lists a number of considerations that the coroner is to take into account when making a determination whether an inquest is necessary or unnecessary. If the coroner decides that an inquest is unnecessary, certain relatives of the deceased are empowered by s. 26 of the Coroners Act to ask for a review of that decision. The section affords them the opportunity to state the reasons for their request either personally, by an agent or in writing. The coroner is then to advise the person in writing of his or her decision and, where the decision is not to hold an inquest, reasons for the decision are to be provided in writing. The relative is also provided with the right to request that the chief coroner review the coroner’s decision. The section further provides for a similar process allowing the relative to submit reasons for requesting the inquest to the chief coroner for purposes of the chief coroner’s review and states that the decision of the chief coroner is final.
[34] The Divisional Court in Jacko found that the coroner’s decision whether or not to hold an inquest was based purely on the public interest and not on any “rights” of the deceased’s family. The coroner’s decision, therefore, was not the exercise of a statutory power of decision.
[35] In my view, Jacko can be distinguished. The statutory scheme established by the Coroners Act is significantly different from the scheme set up under the PSA. Section 59 of the PSA imposes a statutory obligation on the Director to deal with a complaint as provided in s. 61 unless the Director determines that the complaint falls within the criteria set out in s. 60 and he decides not to deal with the complaint. A complainant under the PSA therefore has a right to have the complaint dealt with in accordance with s. 61 unless those two conditions are met.
[36] By contrast, there is no default requirement under the Coroners Act that, absent a screening out decision, a relative’s request under s. 26 is to result in an inquest or further investigation of the case. The relative’s request is to have the coroner reconsider a decision already made not to hold an inquest. That case does not, in my view, assist the Director. . Chaubet v OIPRD
In Chaubet v OIPRD (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court states plainly the absence of any duty on the police to investigate complaints:[9] Counsel for the OIPRD submits that the application for judicial review should be dismissed as frivolous because it seeks an order in mandamus which would appear to require the OIPRD direct the TPS to investigate the information provided by Ms. Chaubet. As confirmed by a panel of the Divisional Court in Homes v. White [2013] O.J. 2886 (Div. Ct.), “there is no private or public law duty owing by the police to investigate a complaint.”
|
