Jacqueline Castel

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his conviction for insubordination arising from an off-duty traffic stop.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in her definition of a 'traffic stop' and in her assessment of the evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's definition of a traffic stop was reasonable and that her conclusion that the appellant's actions constituted an off-duty traffic stop in violation of police policy was supported by the evidence.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of dismissal arising from a 2004 traffic stop and drug seizure.

The Hearing Officer had found the Appellant guilty of neglect of duty based largely on hearsay utterances from a disgraced former officer and circumstantial evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer committed numerous errors of law, including admitting highly unreliable and prejudicial hearsay evidence, shifting the burden of proof onto the Appellant, making irreconcilable findings of fact, and improperly using his own police experience to fill gaps in the evidentiary record.

The finding of misconduct was quashed, rendering the penalty moot.

Two police officers appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest without good and sufficient cause.

The officers had arrested a driver leaving a laneway near a suspected drug dealer's residence without observing any drug transaction or confirming the driver's identity.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's reasons were adequate in the administrative law context and that the officers lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days for permitting drunkenness in the licensed establishment.

The applicant appealed but failed to attend the hearing, which proceeded ex parte.

Based on uncontested police evidence that two patrons were visibly intoxicated and that the establishment's staff ought reasonably to have known of their condition, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found a contravention of subsection 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the 14-day suspension.

The appellant, a public complainant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding two respondent police officers not guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The appellant alleged prosecutorial misconduct, Hearing Officer bias, and errors in findings of fact and credibility.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, noting the appellant waived his right to allege bias by not raising it during the hearing, and concluding the Hearing Officer's factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Board previously found that the Licensee breached subsection 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act and ordered an 8-day suspension of its liquor licence.

The Licensee proposed suspension dates which were acceptable to the Board.

The Board ordered the suspension to commence on October 30, 2011.

The Board previously found that the Licensee contravened the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, and ordered a 9-day suspension of its liquor licence.

The Licensee proposed suspension dates which were acceptable to the Board.

The Board ordered the suspension to commence on November 13, 2011 and continue until November 22, 2011.

The Registrar sought a 14-day suspension of the Licensee's liquor licence following findings that the Licensee contravened the Liquor Licence Act and regulations by serving a minor, permitting drunkenness, and serving an intoxicated person.

The Licensee argued for a 7-day suspension, noting that some allegations had been dismissed.

The Board considered the multiple recent contraventions, the seriousness of serving a minor, and the lack of proposed remedial measures.

The Board ordered a 9-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar sought a 14-day suspension of the licensee's liquor licence for permitting a minor to consume liquor on the premises, contrary to s. 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The licensee argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the licensee had already been fined $2,500 in provincial court for the same incident, claiming double jeopardy.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that regulatory proceedings to determine fitness to hold a licence are distinct from quasi-criminal proceedings and do not engage s. 11 of the Charter.

Considering the circumstances, including the licensee's prior recent contravention and lack of corrective measures, but noting the minor did not purchase the alcohol and consumed very little, the Board imposed an 8-day suspension.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the respondent establishment for allegedly permitting a minor to consume alcohol on the premises.

During a multi-agency inspection, an 18-year-old patron was observed consuming beer from a pitcher purchased by his friends.

The patron had presented his identification to security, who allowed him to enter despite being underage.

The Board found that the Licensee knew or ought to have known that the minor was consuming alcohol, given the proximity of the table to the bar and the fact that security was aware of his age.

The Board concluded that the Licensee contravened subsection 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act and invited submissions on penalty.

The applicant applied for a liquor sales licence for Pizzeria Defina.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving written objections.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the City of Toronto reached an agreement on conditions to be attached to the licence.

The Registrar took no position on the public interest merits.

The Board approved the application on consent, subject to conditions including restrictions on amplified sound, dance floors, and video games.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the respondent's liquor licence.

During the hearing, evidence revealed that the respondent had not renewed the licence and it had been cancelled prior to the hearing.

The panel concluded it had no jurisdiction to make a finding under the Liquor Licence Act and concluded the matter.

The Registrar issued an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,750 against the licensee for permitting drunkenness on the premises, contrary to subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

Inspectors observed a patron exhibiting signs of severe intoxication, including slumping, poor motor skills, and slurred speech.

The licensee argued the patron's behaviour was due to a visual impairment and speech problem, not intoxication.

The Board preferred the evidence of the inspectors, finding the patron was drunk and the licensee knew or ought to have known, thereby permitting the drunkenness.

The monetary penalty was confirmed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the licensee's liquor licence for failing to verify the identity of minors and allowing them to consume outside liquor.

At the hearing, the parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board found the licensee breached the regulations and ordered a four-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the Licensee's liquor licence, alleging that the Licensee obstructed a police investigation by cleaning up the scene of an assault before officers could inspect it, contrary to s. 45(1) of the Liquor Licence Act.

At the hearing, the responding police officers testified that they attended the premises to assist an ambulance and did not conduct or attempt to conduct an inspection under the Act.

At the close of the Registrar's case, the Licensee brought a motion for non-suit.

The Board granted the motion, finding no evidence that the police were conducting an inspection under the Act or that the Licensee interfered with one.

The allegations were dismissed.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for a proposed establishment.

A resident objected to the application, citing concerns about noise, disturbances, and the establishment's proximity to a day care.

The Board found that the objector's concerns were purely speculative and that she did not represent the needs and wishes of the broader community.

The objector failed to establish that the issuance of the licence was not in the public interest.

The application was approved.

The applicant applied for an additional outdoor licensed area for its pub and deli.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application due to written objections from local residents.

At the hearing, the parties and the resident objectors submitted Minutes of Settlement.

The Board approved the application for an outdoor area of 47 persons, subject to conditions including restrictions on music and hours of service, as agreed upon in the settlement.

Following a finding that the licensee breached conditions of its liquor licence, the Board ordered a two-day suspension and requested proposed dates.

Before dates were set, the licence was administratively revoked because the premises closed.

The Board declined to set suspension dates, finding the issue moot, but noted it would do so if the revocation order is rescinded.

Following a finding that the licensee breached subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90, the Board previously ordered a 21-day suspension of its liquor licence and requested proposed dates.

The licensee proposed acceptable dates.

The Board ordered the 21-day suspension to commence on January 9, 2011 and conclude on January 30, 2011.

Following a finding that the licensee breached section 29 of the Liquor Licence Act and subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90, the Board ordered a 21-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The licensee proposed acceptable suspension dates, and the Board ordered the suspension to commence on February 1, 2011.