D. Stephen Jovanovic

The appellant, a police inspector, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of Discreditable Conduct for using discriminatory and insulting language during a recruitment interview with a South Asian candidate.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer applied the wrong legal test, erred in credibility assessments, and reversed the burden of proof.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer correctly applied an objective test to determine the language was offensive to community standards, properly assessed credibility, and correctly applied the standard of clear, convincing, and weighty evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct for carelessly causing damage to his police vehicle during a left-turn collision, and the subsequent penalty of forfeiting 16 hours.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct finding, concluding that the officer failed to ensure he could complete his turn safely.

However, the Commission allowed the penalty appeal, finding the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating the officer's failure to acknowledge guilt and the absence of Highway Traffic Act consequences as aggravating factors.

The penalty was reduced to the jointly submitted forfeiture of 8 hours.

The appellant, a motor vehicle dealer selling electric vehicles, appealed an Order to Cease False Advertising issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's website was misleading because it deducted unrealized future fuel savings from the vehicle's purchase price, presenting an unattainable point-of-sale price.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that, from the perspective of a credulous and inexperienced consumer, the repeated use of terms like 'savings', 'future', and 'potential' alongside the actual purchase price was easily understood.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the website was false, misleading, or deceptive, and vacated the Registrar's order.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her appeal for the return of a deposit on a condominium unit.

The appellant argued that new evidence was available under Rule 18.2(d) of the Tribunal's Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was attempting to relitigate previous court and Tribunal findings that she, not the vendor, breached the agreement of purchase and sale.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, concluding that the appellant failed to present any new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier or that would likely have affected the result.

The applicant and respondents are co-owners of mining properties.

The applicant sought an order under section 181 of the Mining Act for the respondents to pay their share of development expenditures.

The respondents claimed an oral agreement exempted them from these costs.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal determined the procedural steps for the liability phase of the hearing.

The Tribunal also held that an order under section 181(2) must be issued before a hearing on liability can proceed under section 181(4), and directed the applicant to confirm whether it requests such an order.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent objected that the request was filed beyond the 21-day time limit under Rule 18.1 and failed to include supporting submissions.

The Tribunal found the request was untimely, lacked sufficient submissions explaining the alleged errors of law or fact, and no extension of time was requested.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct under the Police Services Act Code of Conduct for using profanity towards a member of the public during a tense investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by equating the use of profanity with Discreditable Conduct absolutely, without applying the required objective test.

The Commission held that an objective test, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person in the community and considering the context of the situation, must be applied.

Given the tense and potentially dangerous circumstances of the call, the Commission concluded the single use of an expletive did not meet the objective test for Discreditable Conduct and revoked the finding.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of neglect of duty and deceit under the Police Services Act.

The appellant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair regarding new evidence (scratch notes) and the refusal to allow a witness to testify about GPS data.

The Commission found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant was provided the new evidence and the Hearing Officer properly exercised her gatekeeper function to exclude irrelevant testimony after the respondent admitted his error.

The Commission declined to re-examine the evidence, deferring to the Hearing Officer's factual findings, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of Discreditable Conduct against two police officers.

The charges arose from the officers' failure to administer a breath test to a driver involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident, despite the driver admitting to consuming one beer five hours earlier.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer reasonably assessed the officers' credibility and correctly applied the objective test for Discreditable Conduct.

The Commission confirmed the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the officers' actions, while based on an incorrect understanding of their authority, were not likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police service.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant argued that the Notice of Hearing was inaccurate and that her hearing impairment prevented her from fully participating in the hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Notice of Hearing provided reasonable notice and that the Hearing Officer took sufficient steps to accommodate the appellant's hearing impairment, ensuring procedural fairness.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of misconduct (discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence) and ordering his dismissal.

The misconduct related to his failure to report two separate kidnappings, conducting unauthorized CPIC queries, and disclosing confidential information.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the Hearing Officer's decisions regarding delay, admission of video link and transcript evidence, credibility assessments, or the finding that his actions constituted discreditable conduct.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his appeal of a 90-day motor vehicle impoundment.

The vehicle was impounded because the driver, a friend of the appellant, was driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued exceptional hardship due to changed financial and living circumstances.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, noting that under section 50.2(4) of the Highway Traffic Act, the appellant could not rely on the ground of exceptional hardship because he had a previous vehicle impoundment, and he failed to submit any new evidence that would have affected the original decision.

The appellant police officer appealed a 12-month demotion imposed after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for giving inconsistent and contradictory evidence in a criminal trial.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by treating his refusal to accept responsibility as an aggravating factor and by failing to apply principles of progressive discipline and consistency of penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the Hearing Officer erred in characterizing the lack of remorse as an aggravating factor rather than the absence of a mitigating factor, it did not render the penalty unreasonable.

The Commission also held that the demotion was within the range of reasonable penalties and that progressive discipline is not required in every case.

The Corporation of the Town of Orangeville applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to abolish the Orangeville Police Service and transition to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission granted consent, finding that adequate and effective police services would be maintained and that all members had contractual severance agreements, with any future disputes to be referred to arbitration.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a case conference order that directed a preliminary issue to be heard in writing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the procedural order did not finally dispose of the appeal as required by Rule 18.1 of the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant sought the use of surface rights on unpatented mining claims for a power transmission line.

After the respondent indicated an intention to appear at the scheduled in-person hearing, the applicant requested the matter proceed by written hearing.

The respondent consented.

The Tribunal ordered the cancellation of the in-person hearing and established a schedule for written submissions.

The appellant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision confirming the suspension of her driver's license.

The request was filed outside the 21-day time limit prescribed by Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Furthermore, the request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, as the appellant's claims of procedural fairness violations were vague and unsupported.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant in a statutory accident benefits dispute brought a motion to compel the respondent's claims adjuster and lead counsel to give oral evidence at an upcoming hearing for three other motions.

The applicant alleged improprieties and coaching during the adjuster's cross-examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the five days of cross-examination transcripts were sufficient for the applicant to present her case, and that fairness did not dictate turning the motion into a trial by requiring oral evidence from the adjuster or opposing counsel.

The respondent police service brought an unopposed motion for a sealing order regarding certain exhibits, transcripts, and factum references from a police disciplinary hearing.

The materials contained highly sensitive intelligence information obtained from a confidential informant, as well as personal and criminal histories of non-parties.

Applying both the common law test from Donovan v. Sherman Estate and section 2(2) of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, 2019, the Commission found that the privacy interests of the non-parties and the need to protect confidential informants outweighed the open court principle.

The motion for a sealing order was granted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claim for Non-Earner Benefits.

She argued that the adjudicator breached the rules of natural justice by refusing to allow her representative to make closing arguments after she testified through an interpreter.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the case conference order did not expressly exclude closing submissions and that the applicant had not waived her right to make them.

Applying the Baker factors, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of closing arguments amounted to a breach of procedural fairness.

The request for reconsideration was allowed and a new hearing was ordered.