so, the first task was to figure out what the deal with this factum from the windsor police was.
they're basically claiming that, because they didn't make the decision, they shouldn't be named on the case. they're asking for the case to be dismissed against them.
i've had some discussion regarding this with them, and they seem to be entirely disinterested in discourse. i've sent them arguments, and all they've been done is repeat themselves. they are now repeating themselves again on the factum.
but, their position is ridiculous; the windsor police are both the authors and the subject of the report, and consequently must be named as respondents because they are central to the topic at hand.
but, what i'm concerned about is them using it as a stalling tactic. they could show up and claim they didn't prepare because they were expecting a dismissal. they are otherwise providing no legal argument. the tactic here appears to be to create a distraction, and hope they can avoid the issue.
i'm not playing that game.
i have two useful precedents.
this is an example of a similar case (up to a difference in scale), where the cops are named as defendants on a judicial review:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2019/2019onsc180/2019onsc180.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAYInBvbGljZSByZXZpZXcgZGlyZWN0b3IiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=2
and, this case discusses the issue at some length:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2016/2016onsc5824/2016onsc5824.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAkImluZGVwZW5kZW50IHBvbGljZSByZXZpZXcgZGlyZWN0b3IiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=29
Beyond the decision maker, it is generally understood that all persons who participated in the administrative hearing under review should be named as respondents.
they're basically claiming that, because they didn't make the decision, they shouldn't be named on the case. they're asking for the case to be dismissed against them.
i've had some discussion regarding this with them, and they seem to be entirely disinterested in discourse. i've sent them arguments, and all they've been done is repeat themselves. they are now repeating themselves again on the factum.
but, their position is ridiculous; the windsor police are both the authors and the subject of the report, and consequently must be named as respondents because they are central to the topic at hand.
but, what i'm concerned about is them using it as a stalling tactic. they could show up and claim they didn't prepare because they were expecting a dismissal. they are otherwise providing no legal argument. the tactic here appears to be to create a distraction, and hope they can avoid the issue.
i'm not playing that game.
i have two useful precedents.
this is an example of a similar case (up to a difference in scale), where the cops are named as defendants on a judicial review:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2019/2019onsc180/2019onsc180.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAYInBvbGljZSByZXZpZXcgZGlyZWN0b3IiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=2
and, this case discusses the issue at some length:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2016/2016onsc5824/2016onsc5824.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAkImluZGVwZW5kZW50IHBvbGljZSByZXZpZXcgZGlyZWN0b3IiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=29
Beyond the decision maker, it is generally understood that all persons who participated in the administrative hearing under review should be named as respondents.
again: their position is beyond wrong, it's incomprehensible. they wrote the damned report!
as it turns out, there's a part in the statute that lets me file a motion to ask for clarification on the issue.
so, i am going to do that in the next few days, and they will need to react appropriately. if the court lets them off then that's fine, but i've done my due diligence. if the court orders that they take part, they'll need to prepare for an actual defence...
i need to call toronto, now.