Jacqueline Castel

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting overcrowding in its licensed establishment.

Two AGCO inspectors conducted independent counts using mechanical counters and found the number of patrons exceeded the licensed capacity of 240.

The Tribunal accepted the inspectors' evidence over the appellant's internal counts, finding on a balance of probabilities that the establishment was over capacity.

The $1,000 monetary penalty was confirmed.

The Licensee appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to suspend its liquor licence for 14 days.

The Tribunal found that the Licensee contravened the regulations by failing to clear signs of beverage alcohol service by 2:45 a.m. and by permitting liquor not purchased from a government store onto the premises.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation that the Licensee served alcohol after 2:00 a.m. due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal invited written submissions on penalty.

The Amherstburg Police Service brought a motion to file three affidavits responding to allegations of breaches of natural justice and procedural fairness in a disciplinary proceeding.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged breaches could be determined by reference to the record, making the affidavit evidence unnecessary and unfair.

The Commission also noted that it is improper for a Hearing Officer to swear an affidavit explaining their conduct after the fact.

The appellant in a police discipline appeal brought a motion to introduce an affidavit alleging prosecutorial incompetence and breaches of natural justice during the hearing.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the affidavit did not qualify as fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

Applying the Keeprite test, the Commission held that affidavit evidence to supplement the record is only admissible in rare circumstances where the alleged breach cannot be proven by reference to the record.

Because the appellant's allegations could be ascertained from the hearing transcripts, the affidavit was inadmissible.

Three police officers appealed the penalty of dismissal (or order to resign) imposed by a Hearing Officer after they pled guilty to multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, discreditable conduct, and insubordination.

The misconduct primarily involved their participation in a BBM group where they shared degrading and discriminatory photographs and comments about members of the public and other officers, as well as failing to report another officer's criminal activities.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding that the Hearing Officer did not misapprehend expert psychiatric evidence regarding group dynamics, properly weighed mitigating factors such as rehabilitation and guilty pleas against the egregious nature of the misconduct, and correctly applied the legal test for dismissal.

The Commission upheld the conclusion that the officers' actions irreparably damaged the reputation of the police service, justifying the ultimate penalty of dismissal.

The moving party brought a motion to strike portions of a Notice of Appeal and factums filed by a public complainant and the intervener.

The impugned portions alleged breaches of natural justice and prosecutorial incompetence during a police disciplinary hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked the statutory authority under the Police Services Act or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to strike pleadings that are clearly connected to the central issue of whether misconduct was proved on clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse his registration as a gaming assistant.

The Registrar refused the application based on the appellant's criminal record and his recent, repeated non-compliance with a term of his wife's lottery retailer registration that prohibited him from being involved in the business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the criminal convictions were dated, the recent breaches of the registration terms provided reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination under the Code of Conduct.

The officer had refused an order from a superior to change his investigative conclusion on a Motor Vehicle Collision Report, maintaining his honest belief that a civilian driver, rather than a fellow officer, was at fault.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the order was unlawful because it would have forced the officer to sign a document he believed to be inaccurate, which is tantamount to deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The conviction was substituted with an acquittal.

The appellant police officer was convicted of insubordination for refusing to comply with an order from a superior to change the finding of fault on a motor vehicle collision report.

The officer honestly believed his original conclusion was accurate.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the order was unlawful because it would have forced the officer to sign a document he believed to be inaccurate, which is tantamount to deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was substituted with an acquittal.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming imposed a $2,500 monetary penalty on the appellant establishment for allegedly exceeding its liquor licence capacity of 90 patrons.

Two police officers conducted manual head counts and estimated 112 and 114 patrons, while the establishment's security guard's mechanical counter read 90.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found significant inconsistencies in the police officers' evidence and noted the inherent difficulties of conducting a manual head count in a crowded premises.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the contravention on a balance of probabilities and directed that the monetary penalty be set aside.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration as a travel agent under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the proceedings concluded based on the Minutes of Settlement.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the Appellant to pay $500 in costs to the Registrar due to unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct, specifically failing to attend a pre-hearing and failing to comply with a pre-hearing order.

Constable Mulholland appealed the penalty imposed by a Hearing Officer for multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, insubordination, discreditable conduct, and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a demotion with conditions, which the appellant argued was harsh and excessive given his diagnoses of PTSD and substance abuse.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the penalty factors, including the seriousness of the multiple acts of misconduct and the mitigating medical evidence, and that the penalty did not violate the duty to accommodate.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering him to resign or be dismissed after being found guilty of Discreditable Conduct, Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority, and Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Force.

The officer had pursued and forcefully arrested a mentally ill pedestrian without lawful authority and grounded him multiple times.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's penalty decision was reasonable.

The Hearing Officer appropriately considered the officer's prior disciplinary record, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the fact that the officer continued to engage in similar misconduct despite receiving extensive therapy for his mental health issues.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of a loss of 5 days' pay.

The charge arose from an off-duty email sent to his ex-wife regarding child access, which referenced a previous disciplinary penalty.

The Hearing Officer found the email threatening and likely to bring discredit upon the police service.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons or an evidentiary basis for concluding the email was threatening or would likely bring discredit to the police service if made public.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant police officer sought to introduce new medical evidence and internal correspondence regarding his post-disposition work performance on his appeal of a disciplinary demotion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and dismissed the motion.

The Commission found that the medical evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the penalty hearing, and that post-disposition work performance was not relevant where the penalty imposed was demotion rather than dismissal.

The Toronto Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the basis that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had resigned and was no longer a police officer.

The appellant had been found guilty of misconduct and resigned on the day the penalty decision was to be delivered, just before it was read.

The Commission held that under the Police Services Act, it only has jurisdiction over current police officers.

Because the appellant had resigned, the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear his appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The moving party, a police officer found guilty of misconduct and ordered dismissed, brought a motion to extend the time to perfect his disciplinary appeal to the Commission until the conclusion of parallel criminal proceedings arising from the same incident.

The officer had been convicted of sexual assault but had not yet been sentenced and intended to appeal.

The Commission granted the motion on consent, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's direction in Toronto v. C.U.P.E. Local 79 that lower tribunals should await the outcome of criminal proceedings dealing with the same facts to avoid collateral attacks and inconsistent verdicts.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and a penalty of forfeiture of 12 days' pay for using unnecessary force during an arrest.

The officer argued that the hearing officer applied the wrong standard of proof, misapprehended the evidence regarding knee strikes, and erred in assessing the necessity of the force used.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the balance of probabilities standard, reasonably concluded that the knee strikes constituted unnecessary force, and imposed a reasonable penalty consistent with similar cases.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to rule on the appellant's motion for a stay of proceedings based on abuse of process.

The Commission determined that the deliberate merging of the internal disciplinary investigation and the criminal investigation, which used regulatory powers to compel evidence for the criminal probe, constituted an egregious abuse of process and a violation of the appellant's Charter rights.

The Commission set aside the Hearing Officer's decision and ordered a stay of proceedings on all counts.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to refuse its application for a liquor licence.

The sole director of the Applicant was previously the manager of another establishment that had its licence suspended multiple times and ultimately revoked for permitting drunkenness, removing liquor, and allowing a drug transaction.

The Tribunal found that the director's past conduct and failure to ensure compliance at the previous establishment afforded reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal refusing the licence.