Applicant made complaint to Canadian Human Rights Commission. Commission allowed applicant’s complaint to proceed in part but limited it to deal only with allegations dating from November 2008 to August 2010. Applicant applied for judicial review, seeking to set aside decision. Applicant claimed that J, who she met online in 2006, was responsible for cyber attacks against her and against Canadian government and other Canadian and international institutions. Applicant brought motion for order to direct investigation into her claims of ongoing criminal interference through cyber hacking by J against her and others, and she sought stay of proceedings of underlying judicial review application pending determination of investigation. Motion dismissed. Applicant had not addressed fundamental legal issue of whether court had jurisdiction to order investigation. Court’s jurisdiction was set out in ss. 17 and 18 of Federal Courts Act, but applicant had not referred to Act at all. Role of court was to resolve disputes, interpret law and to defend Constitution, which required it to be completely separate in authority and function from all other participants in justice system. Court did not have any jurisdiction to investigate alleged criminal activity or to order that investigation be conducted. Where person had been victim of alleged crime, person should report incident to police. Applicant alleged that she has been victim of cyber hacking continually since 2006, but she did not explain whether she had reported to police extensive allegations she now made. It was not court’s role to direct criminal investigation. Underlying application for judicial review should proceed as soon as possible, and new timetable was established.
Theaker v. Canada (Justice) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 3537, 2018 CarswellNat 3692, 2018 FC 662, 2018 CF 662, Catherine M. Kane J. (F.C.).