Ontario v. Waskowec

Ontario v. Waskowec Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2015-03-25 Neutral citation 2015 ONCA 203 Docket numbers C58693 Judges Watt, David; Lauwers, Peter D.; Hourigan, C. William Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Ontario v. Waskowec, 2015 ONCA 203 DATE: 20150325 DOCKET: C58693 Watt, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Respondent and Peter Waskowec Appellant Peter Waskowec, acting in person Mary-Ellen Hurman, for the respondent Heard and released orally: March 9, 2015 On appeal from the order of Michael A. Code of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 13, 2014. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant brought a private prosecution against Hydro One, claiming that it improperly retained his property, assaulted him and uttered threats. His private prosecution arises from a dispute with Ontario Hydro regarding the refusal to courier bills to his home. [2] The appellant’s private prosecution was dismissed by the Justice of the Peace who found that the facts did not disclose a criminal offence known to law. [3] The appellant commenced an appeal from the order of the Justice of the Peace. Justice Code converted the appeal to an application for mandamus because an appeal was not available. On the application, he found that it was unclear whether the Justice of the Peace had declined to issue a summons or warrant under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, or whether he had refused to receive the information under s. 504 of the Criminal Code. He also noted that no sworn information was ever received by the Justice of the Peace. Despite this, the Justice of the Peace held a hearing and seemingly rejected the information as if under s. 507.1. In so doing, he conflated the s. 504 and s. 507.1 regimes and committed a jurisdictional error. [4] Justice Code noted however, that mandamus is discretionary. He found that because the materials filed did not establish a prima facie case that any of the alleged offences were actually committed, the result would inevitably have been the same even if the error had not been committed. In these circumstances, he declined to exercise his discretion to grant mandamus. [5] Before this court, the appellant: (i) appealed the refusal of Justice Code to grant mandamus; and (ii) sought mandamus and other relief from this court de novo. He seeks a mandamus order requiring Hydro One to courier his bills to his home. We refuse to grant that order. The appellant brought a civil mandamus application for that very relief. It was dismissed by Justice Backhouse and the appellant unsuccessfully appealed to this court and to the Supreme Court of Canada. In any event, we are of the view that Hydro One has no duty to courier mail to the appellant’s home and has fulfilled its statutory duties for the delivery of bills. [6] We also see no error in the decision of Code J. dismissing the appellant’s mandamus application. [7] The appeal is dismissed. The motion brought by the appellant for mandamus and other relief is also dismissed. “David Watt J.A.” “P. Lauwers J.A.” “C.W. Hourigan J.A.”