Ontario Superior Court confirms limited rights of complainants to investigation records in police conduct investigation

Ontario Superior Court confirms limited rights of complainants to investigation records in police conduct investigation.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Police Services Board – Investigative powers – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness; Police – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming.

Sarpong v. Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, [2026] O.J. No. 963, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, March 11, 2026, S. Shore, S. O’Brien and I.R. Smith JJ.

The applicant, a FedEx employee, had been charged with the offence of “Take Auto Without Consent” contrary to the Criminal Code for allegedly taking a FedEx vehicle offsite for his own use when off duty. The Crown ultimately withdrew the charges. The applicant filed a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (now the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, or “LECA”) regarding the two police officers who had been involved in the investigation. He complained to the Director that the officers’ investigation was negligent.

The complaint was referred to the Peel Regional Police Service (“PRPS”) and it was concluded by the Chief of the PRPS that the allegations of misconduct were not substantiated.

The applicant requested that the Director review the Chief’s determination under section 71 of the Police Services Act (“PSA”). As an interim decision, the Director determined that further investigation was required, as some deficiencies in the investigation were noted (the applicant was not interviewed; there was a lack of information regarding whether the applicant was arrested, when the charge was withdrawn and what was on the record regarding the withdrawal of the charges; and the report was unclear on whether FedEx had wanted to pursue criminal charges against the applicant). The Director identified further investigative steps the PRPS was required to take.

The PRPS completed the further steps identified by the Director and issued a supplementary investigative report, again concluding the allegations of misconduct were not substantiated. The Director continued with the investigation and concluded the investigation adequately addressed the issues raised in the complaint, and the Chief’s findings were supported by available evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Director’s final decision, arguing the Court should order further disclosure to fairly assess the material on which the Director’s decision was based, and the Director’s decision was unreasonable because it relied on information that was inaccurate or inconsistent with the information available in the record.

The application was dismissed.

First, the Court held there was no procedural unfairness. The Court noted that complainants under the PSA are entitled to a comparatively low level of procedural fairness in the complaint process because they are not facing a concrete impact on their rights and interests. Deference is also shown to the procedural choices of the investigating police force. The Court noted that complainants do not have an explicit right to disclosure of documents with respect to the investigation into their complaint other than disclosure of the report itself. There is no general right to discovery nor are complainants entitled to disclosure that would be available in the context of a criminal prosecution.

Among other things, the applicant had requested an unredacted version of an email from Crown counsel providing the reason the charges were withdrawn. PRPS claimed privilege over this email. The Court noted that, in making its decision, the Director relied on the summary of the email found in the report, which indicated the withdrawal request was based on the assessment that prosecuting was not in the public interest. The Director’s reliance on the summary means the applicant had the information underlying the Director’s decision.

Second, the Court held that the Director’s decision was reasonable. The standard of review was noted to be reasonableness. The Court confirmed that reviewing courts are not to intervene in the factual findings of administrative decision-makers absent exceptional circumstances, and that a reasonableness review is not a “line-by-line treasure hunt for error”.

The Court found that the applicant’s detailed review of what he considered to be inaccuracies in the decision or inconsistencies between the decision and the record over-parsed the wording of the decision and amounted at most to minor missteps. The Court considered examples of the purported inaccuracies, and held that the applicant had pointed to minor wording changes that did not inform the substance of the Director’s decision and that provided no basis for finding the decision to be unreasonable.

This case was digested by JoAnne G. Barnum of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].