This paper aims to summarize the case of Mian v. City of Ottawa. Irfan M. Mian is an applicant and defendant in this case, and the City of Ottawa is a respondent and prosecution side. Mian is a counsel for himself, and Madeleine Hayes is counseling for the City of Ottawa. The case was heard on March 28, 2017, by Marc R. Labrosse J., and the final judgment was on April 5, 2018.
According to Marc R. Labrosse J., the Applicant is charged with “driving while holding or using a hand-held communication device,” which is contrary to subsection 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c.H.8 (Mian v. City of Ottawa 1). Also, the Applicant seeks the disclosure of first-party records, the disciplinary records, and the employment file for Officer Darren Zorn, who is reported to have had a drug addiction for six years before 2013 (Mian v. City of Ottawa 1).
Considering the position of the Applicant, several principal aspects should be observed. First of all, Mian relies primarily on extraordinary remedies, which are described in para. 140 of the Provincial Offences Act, RSO 1990, c.P.33. However, the judge considers the disclosure of the disciplinary records to be irrelevant to the case. Nevertheless, the Applicant assumes that in these particular circumstances, the criteria for the disclosure were met, and thus there is a miscarriage of justice.
Considering the position of the Crown, there are three critical reasons to dismiss the Application. Primarily, the defendant has failed to comply with the “30-day notice requirements in s. 141(1) of the POA” (Mian v. City of Ottawa 2). Secondly, the Crown argues that, on this stage of proceedings, it is inappropriate to seek “relief by way of certiorari” (Mian v. City of Ottawa 2). Thirdly, it is stated that the disciplinary records should not be disclosed in this particular case.
To further elaborate on the position of the Crown about the relief against a pre-trial ruling, it should be observed that applications for certiorari or a Charter are rarely granted (Mian v. City of Ottawa 2). The Court of Appeal states that such relief is limited to jurisdictional errors, and it is also suggested that the disclosure of documents to defendants should only be granted if non-disclosure has a profound impact on the fairness of the proceeding of the case (Mian v. City of Ottawa 2). It is concluded in the case that the refusal of the Application is not an error that should go to jurisdiction, even if it is an error in fact.
However, the case also provides a perspective on Defendant’s reasoning behind his Application. The Applicant emphasizes the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in McNeil supports his position. Mian argues that the requests for disciplinary records do not always require an O’Connor Application before disclosure. Primarily, Defendant doubts the credibility of the officer, and thus he strives to justify the first party records disclosure (Mian v. City of Ottawa 3).
However, the Crown specifically stated that the disclosure of these records is not relevant to the case without O’Connor’s Application. Nevertheless, Defendant decided to proceed with his Application despite the Crown’s decision. In conclusion, it is stated that the Charter application and the application for certiorari “to obtain the disciplinary records as part of the first party records disclosure” are dismissed (Mian v. City of Ottawa 3).
Work Cited
Mian v. City of Ottawa, 2018 ONSC 2131, 2018 CarswellOnt 5388.