Committee for Justice for Otto Vass v. Lucas (Coroner), (2006) 217 O.A.C. 141 (DC)

• Judge: Swinton, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: October 23, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2006), 217 O.A.C. 141 (DC)

Com. for Justice v. Lucas (2006), 217 O.A.C. 141 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.071

Committee for Justice for Otto Vass (applicant) v. Dr. William Lucas (respondent)

(509/06)

Indexed As: Committee for Justice for Otto Vass v. Lucas (Coroner)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Swinton, J.

October 26, 2006.

Summary:

The applicant sought judicial review of a coroner's decision refusing it standing at an inquest. It also sought to quash the inquest on the ground that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the coroner and the Crown Attorney.

The Ontario Divisional Court, per Swinton, J., dismissed the application.

Coroners - Topic 4022

Inquests and fatality inquiries - Procedure - Standing - The applicant sought standing at an inquest into the death of Otto Vass - Vass died after being restrained by police officers - The applicant described itself as a coalition of concerned community members, friends and colleagues of Vass and individuals involved in the mental health and justice systems - The Vass family (widow and son) supported the application - The coroner ruled that the applicant met neither the private nor public law tests for standing - The applicant was an ad hoc group of citizens without a clearly defined membership and did not have a substantial special knowledge or unique perspective that would assist the jury - The Crown Attorney's role was to act on the public's interest and could address issues of concern to the family - The Ontario Divisional Court, per Swinton, J., dismissed the applicant's judicial review application - The coroner did not err in concluding that the applicant did not meet the private or public law tests for standing - The fact that members of the Vass family believed that the applicant would represent their perspective was a factor to be considered in determining whether to grant public interest standing, but it was not determinative - See paragraphs 4 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Kingston Penitentiary (Range Representative on Administrative Segregation) v. Regional Coroner (Eastern Ontario) (1989), 33 O.A.C. 241; 38 Admin. L.R. 141 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Stanford v. Harris - see Kingston Penitentiary (Range Representative on Administrative Segregation) v. Regional Coroner (Eastern Ontario).

Black Action Defence Committee v. Huxter (1992), 59 O.A.C. 327; 11 O.R.(3d) 641 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Women Working With Immigrant Women - Youth Committee et al. v. Lucas (Coroner) (1999), 128 O.A.C. 279 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Cinderella Allalouf Ad-Hoc Litigation Committee et al. v. Lucas (1999), 122 O.A.C. 115 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 21].

Counsel:

Peter Rosenthal and Jackie Esmonde, for the applicant;

Sara Blake, for the respondent;

Kalli Y. Chapman, for Bruce K. Farr, Chief of Toronto EMS;

Adriana De Marco, for Toronto Police Services Board and Chief of Police;

Anita Szigeti and Suzan E. Fraser, for the Empowerment Council;

Troy Harrison, for the SIU.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 23, 2006, before Swinton, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who released an endorsement on that date and filed the following reasons for the endorsement on October 26, 2006.