Most regulators can decline to investigate complaints that are frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process or otherwise not in the public interest to pursue. It is often easier to “screen out” less serious concerns as the risk of taking no action is low. However, there are circumstances in which even very serious allegations cannot reasonably be pursued. An example is found at: Watt v. Ontario (Law Enforcement Complaints Agency), 2025 ONSC 324 (CanLII).
Dr. Watt complained about one named, and several unnamed, police officers:
He alleged that since he arrived in Toronto in 2008 for the purpose of training in orthopedic surgery, he has been subjected to various discreditable acts by unknown TPS officers, including shooting him in the chest, restraining him while they sexually abused his girlfriend, and making a false complaint about him to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. He also alleged that “Nazis of Toronto” were cloning him. He further claimed that corrupt politicians, including the Prime Minister of Canada, were part of the cover up of police corruption in Toronto, including the conspiracy to falsely accuse him of murder. He also alleged that the cover up resulted in a “force majeure” in the regulatory legal community in Ontario, with far reaching consequences that remain a threat to public safety and national security and call into question the validity of the institutions that govern the legal and medical profession.
It is difficult to conceive of a more serious complaint. The Complaints Director declined to deal with the matter “concluding that the complaint was frivolous and lacking in an air of reality.”
The Court reviewed Dr. Watt’s previous litigation involving other parties, often with overlapping subject matters, many of which were dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. The Court concluded:
The Complaints Director considered the allegations and reasonably concluded that Dr. Watt did not provide substantial evidence or information to support his serious claims against the police and others. It was reasonable for the Complaints Director to conclude that it would not be in the public interest to dedicate investigative resources to the allegations of this nature.
The Court also agreed that the Complaints Director had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints about other institutions distinct from the police force.
The Court also found that there was no procedural unfairness by the Complaints Director who received and considered detailed submissions from Dr. Watt. At the screening stage the threshold for procedural fairness is low and, under this legislation, did not contemplate the need for a hearing or for notice.
While this may be an exceptional case, there are circumstances in which even serious allegations do not warrant a full investigation, especially where no supporting evidence is provided and the concerns do not have an “air of reality”.