A former justice of the peace is vowing to make sure “the truth is known” despite an application by the Ministry of the Attorney General for judicial supervision over any future litigation launched by him.
The vow follows a decision on Jan. 19, 2012, by Ontario Superior Court Justice David Stinson granting the ministry access to court records for use in its application in Her Majesty the Queen v. Jogendra.
The ministry claims in court documents supporting its application for judicial supervision that since 2009, former justice of the peace Regis Jogendra has initiated more than a dozen private criminal prosecutions against members of the judiciary, Ministry of the Attorney General lawyers, and others who have acted for parties involved in civil and administrative proceedings he has launched since leaving his position.
According to Stinson’s decision, the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario will be able to “access records of court proceedings and other documents held and controlled by the court services offices in relation to any private prosecution commenced in Ontario” by Jogendra, who lives in Scarborough, Ont., “for the purpose of producing transcripts of proceedings and reproducing copies of court documents for use as evidence in an application” for judicial supervision over future litigation by him.
Jogendra, who says he retired from his position in 2003, was criminally investigated in March 1999 after allegations of unwanted sexual touching arose between June 1997 and March 1999 while he was acting as a justice of the peace at the Scarborough courthouse, according to an affidavit filed by counsel for the ministry in support of the application for judicial supervision.
The allegations were followed by a complaint by Det. Cameron Field of the Toronto Police Service against Jogendra to the Justices of the Peace Review Council in November 2000.
Jogendra was later charged with 10 counts of sexual assault involving 10 alleged female victims who had “sought [his] legal assistance as a justice of the peace with respect to various civil, provincial offence, and criminal matters,” according to a 2008 statement of defence filed by the lawyer for a Crown attorney sued by Jogendra at the Small Claims Court.
The Crown ultimately withdrew the 10 charges.
According to the affidavit filed by the ministry in support of its application in Her Majesty the Queen v. Jogendra, Jogendra wrote a letter to the Justices of the Peace Review Council and former associate chief justice of justices of the peace Donald Ebbs saying he didn’t dispute the contents of Field’s complaint and offered to resign, an assertion Jogendra adamantly disputes.
He says that wasn’t the case, adding a formal plea agreement was never reached and he never resigned.
“That is absolutely untrue,” says Jogendra. “I retired and the charges were withdrawn. There was never any written agreement that I resign. There was simply a proposal by the Crown.
They wanted to have me removed from my office by police because I’d refused improper search warrants and issued charges against police while in judicial office. I’d also dismissed cases for lack of evidence and struck down improper search warrants brought by Crowns.”
According to a letter by Ebbs provided to Law Times by Jogendra, Jogendra entered mandatory retirement in January 2003, five months prior to the criminal charges being dismissed.
Jogendra says the sexual assault allegations involved asking a woman to place her hand on the Bible after she came to him for help.
Jogendra says he placed his hand over hers, an act he says contributed to sexual assault charges being brought against him. He says the alleged assaults also involved him and a woman brushing up against each other as they passed each other in his office.
Jogendra was later charged separately with the sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl on the TTC subway, according to the statement of defence filed by the Crown in a Small Claims Court matter brought by Jogendra.
Jogendra was found not guilty at trial in the matter involving the girl, according to a statement of defence filed in a Small Claims Court matter launched by Jogendra.
According to Jogendra, Crown counsel in the matter produced a photo of him on a TTC platform as evidence in the sexual assault case involving the 16-year-old girl. However, the photo contained a different date from when the alleged assault took place, he adds.
“Luckily, the judge was very intelligent and realized the dates didn’t add up,” says Jogendra.
Then in 2006, Jogendra began to seek reimbursement of his criminal defence costs from the Ministry of the Attorney General for the prior criminal proceedings against him along with retroactive adjustments to his remuneration.
According to a letter Jogendra received from an
early resolution officer with the Ontario ombudsman in
June 2007, he also sought judicial indemnification.
According to the letter, Kenneth Campbell, then-
director of the Crown law office, replied that judicial immunity didn’t apply in Jogendra’s case.
Campbell “provided further information concerning his policies and practices of the ministry and confirmed that there is no policy or practice in place authorizing the Ministry of the Attorney General to provide judicial indemnification in a case such as yours,” the early resolution officer stated in the letter to Jogendra.
“He explained that your only recourse in this case is to pursue this matter through the court system.”
So Jogendra says that’s what he did. “Mr. Campbell says right here that I should pursue this matter through the court system,” says Jogendra, pointing to the letter. “So I did and now they’re coming after me and are trying to stop me from doing that. It doesn’t make sense.”
Following the 2007 letter from the ombudsman, Jogendra launched a small claims action against Campbell for denying his reimbursement claim.
He then unsuccessfully appealed an ensuing ruling dismissing the action as statute-barred and an abuse of process, according to the ministry’s affidavit filed in support of its application for judicial supervision.
Jogendra also launched a small claims action against ombudsman employees for “refusing to intervene in respect of the Ministry of the Attorney General’s denial of the reimbursement claim,” the ministry’s affidavit notes.
In addition, he launched a human rights complaint against the ministry and Campbell for denying the reimbursement claim and several judges who later ruled against him in the matter, according to the ministry’s affidavit.
The courts, the ministry’s affidavit alleges, have “refused to issue process against any of the persons whom Jogendra has charged.”
In addition, according to the ministry’s affidavit, Jogendra launched a complaint at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario against the HRTO itself and its vice chairman, David Muir, for dismissing his human rights case against the ministry and brought an application to the Superior Court of Justice to appoint a “disinterested person” to adjudicate the matter.
“Mr. Muir was an ex-Crown attorney himself,” says
“It created significant conflicts of interests which I argued against,” he adds. The action against Muir was unsuccessful.
The ministry’s affidavit notes Jogendra also brought misconduct complaints against Campbell, lawyers who opposed him in court, the Crown law office, and several others to the Law Society of Upper Canada. Jogendra says the law society never responded.
“Since 2009, Jogendra has initiated over a dozen private criminal prosecutions against members of the judiciary, Ministry of the Attorney General lawyers, and other lawyers who have acted for parties involved in Jogendra’s civil and administrative proceedings,” the affidavit claims.
The Crown’s application for judicial supervision over any future litigation by Jogendra was argued on March 22 and 23, 2012. The judge’s decision on the application is on reserve.
Jogendra also disputes the ministry’s interpretation of Stinson’s order on access to the documents and records of court proceedings. According to him, “access, if any, was not to” the ministry but to Her Majesty the Queen.
“It was submitted by me that criminal informations were outside the scope of s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act as it is confined to only proceedings meaning civil,” Jogendra added in a written response to questions from Law Times.
“Justice Stinson did not determine this issue and left it to the application judge, who later was Justice Hainey who heard it and he said that if he determines they are outside s. 140, he would disabuse his mind and exclude them.”
Within the ministry’s application for judicial supervision, it requested that Jogendra not be allowed to “institute or continue any civil proceedings in any court in Ontario, except with leave of a judge of the Superior Court, pursuant to s. 140 (3) of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act.”
The Crown also requested that Jogendra be stopped from “initiating private criminal prosecutions or swearing informations under the Criminal Code of Canada, except with leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, with requests made with at least 10 days’ notice to the attorney general.”
“The order of Justice Stinson does not prohibit Mr. Jogendra from starting any criminal or civil proceedings in Ontario.
The order allowed the Crown to access court records for use in its vexatious litigant application, which was argued on March 22 and 23, 2012.
The judge’s decision is on reserve,” said ministry spokesman Brendan Crawley. “If the vexatious litigant application is granted, there will be judicial supervision over any future litigation brought by Mr. Jogendra.”
For now, Jogendra says he’ll continue to make sure “the truth is known.”
“I’m not a malicious person. I just want people to know the truth. Everyone is equal before the law,” he adds.
“The Ministry of the Attorney General cannot have access where the ordinary citizen is not allowed.”