Ontario Premier Doug Ford can rest easy thanks to a recent ruling in Ontario Superior Court.
Issued January 21, 2022, (R. v. Tohidy, 2022 ONSC 509) Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland kiboshed the notion that politicians may be privately prosecuted for vaccine mandates under Section 504 of the Criminal Code.
Section 504. Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a justice, and the justice shall receive the information, where it is alleged
(a) that the person has committed, anywhere, an indictable offence that may be tried in the province in which the justice resides, and that the person
(i) is or is believed to be, or
(ii) resides or is believed to reside,
within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice;
(b) that the person, wherever he may be, has committed an indictable offence within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice;
(c) that the person has, anywhere, unlawfully received property that was unlawfully obtained within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice; or
(d) that the person has in his possession stolen property within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice.
“With due respect to Mr. Tohidy and the internet information he has chosen to believe,” wrote Justice Hackland, “none of this has any air of reality to a rational person and, more to the point, has nothing at all to do with Premier Ford. There are no reasonable grounds to permit a private prosecution to go forward.”
R. v. Tohidy, 2022 ONSC 509
 The Crown brings this application pursuant to section 6.11(2) and 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules for the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) , SI/2012-7 (the “Rules”) for an order summarily dismissing an application by Mr. Davoud Tohidy to compel a Justice of the Peace to receive an information against the Premier of Ontario.
 Mr. Tohidy submitted information to a Justice of the Peace in December 2021 seeking to be permitted to commence a private prosecution against Premier Ford. The Justice of the Peace refused to receive the information.
 Mr. Tohidy wishes to pursue a private prosecution against Mr. Ford “as an individual” on charges of assault and criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from the introduction of vaccine mandates and other efforts to promote vaccinations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. He is also seeking “a declaration that a mandatory Covid vaccination is a criminal act’’ and “a declaration that implementation of vaccine passports in Ontario is a criminal act and must be revoked urgently”. He also seeks “an order to stop the mass Covid-19 vaccinations immediately” and he seeks costs as well as “punitive damages in the amount of $1 billion”.
 I set out the provisions of the Rules under which the Crown brings this application:
6(2) Upon application by the respondent that a notice of application does not show a substantial ground for the order sought, a judge of the court may, if he or she considers that the matter is frivolous or vexatious and can be determined without a full hearing, dismiss the application summarily and cause the applicant to be advised accordingly.
34.02 The presiding judge may conduct a preliminary assessment of the merits of any pre-trial or other application on the basis of the materials filed, and, if satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect that the application could succeed, may dismiss the application without further hearing or inquiry.
 In deciding whether to receive an information under section 504 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, the Justice of the Peace has the right and indeed the duty to consider whether the information he or she receives discloses “reasonable grounds” to believe that a person has or may have committed an indictable offence. The Crown says the Justice of the Peace had no such reasonable grounds in this case and the information was properly not received. I agree, for the reasons noted below.
 In this application, the Crown asks the court to conclude that there is no substantial ground for the order sought (to compel a Justice of the Peace to receive the information) and to find that the proceeding which Mr. Tohidy seeks to pursue is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. The Crown argues there is no evidence before the court from which it could be reasonably concluded that Mr. Ford has committed any offence and further, the criminal courts do not grant declarations, issue injunctive orders against the Crown or award damages.
 Mr. Tohidy provided his submissions at some length and filed a very large quantity of material he has downloaded from the internet. Mr. Tohidy does not claim any personal expertise or involvement in the matters he is addressing. He works at a call centre. He spends hours each day researching these issues on the Internet. He has never met or interacted with Premier Ford.
 Mr. Tohidy’s submissions to the court may be summarized as follows. The pandemic is in fact not real and is the product of a malicious conspiracy among a number of persons and organizations with the goal of creating a “new world order”. This vast conspiracy to create a fake pandemic is orchestrated by drug manufacturers, Communist China, the Gates foundation, the World Health Organization and certain Canadian “criminals” like Mr. Ford. He says the vaccination programs are giving people not vaccines, but poison. He says PCR tests are actually genetic tests and it is a “criminal act” to administer them. The healthcare community is fraudulently and intentionally misdiagnosing people to create the guise of a pandemic. As Premier, Mr Ford is said to be complicit in this conspiracy. He also believes persons connected with this conspiracy were interfering with the billing on his Roger’s internet account.
 With due respect to Mr. Tohidy and the internet information he has chosen to believe, none of this has any air of reality to a rational person and, more to the point, has nothing at all to do with Premier Ford. There are no reasonable grounds to permit a private prosecution to go forward and Mr. Tohidy’s application for an order of mandamus requiring a Justice of the Peace to receive his information is not capable of succeeding and is manifestly frivolous and vexatious.
 In the circumstances, the Crown’s application is allowed and Mr. Tohidy’s application for a mandamus order is dismissed.