John Kromkamp

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision ordering his dismissal for discreditable conduct and insubordination, including an impaired driving incident while on duty.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding his PTSD and alcohol addiction, and argued the hearing officer erred by proceeding in his absence and failing to properly weigh his mental health issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence as it could have been obtained with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding the hearing officer reasonably weighed the disposition factors and that the seriousness of the misconduct justified dismissal despite the appellant's mental health conditions.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order and an Order to Close issued by Toronto Fire Services regarding the third storey of a property he co-owned.

The orders required the closure of the third floor until a second exit was provided, on the basis that the property was operating as a rooming house.

The appellant argued the property was a legal duplex and that a window provided a sufficient second exit.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the upper unit was occupied as a rooming house and was subject to Section 9.3 of the Fire Code, which requires two exits.

The Commission determined the window was not an acceptable exit.

The Commission amended the Inspection Order to provide a compliance option of reverting the unit back to a single dwelling unit, and confirmed the Order to Close due to the high risk to occupants.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, directing the Registrar to revoke the corporate appellant's registration as a motor vehicle dealer and imposing a two-year period of strict terms and conditions on the individual appellant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after an unknown individual was caught driving it without a valid licence.

The appellant argued exceptional hardship and due diligence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant had access to alternative transportation.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the due diligence ground.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonably attempted to transfer the vehicle to her ex-husband pursuant to a separation agreement, and it was unreasonable to expect her to verify the licence of an unknown driver who was permitted to drive by her ex-husband.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse their registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal directed the Registrar to refuse Robert Kelly McGlogan's registration as a salesperson, and ordered that the registrations of Motorhead Classics as a dealer and Kevin Robert Klein as a salesperson be subject to extensive terms and conditions for three years.

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 appellants appealed Tarion's decision to disallow their warranty claims regarding their new home.

The claims involved condensation in the cold room, lot grading, and eavestrough drainage.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the cold room and lot grading, finding they were not covered by the warranty.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the eavestroughs, finding that the builder's removal of downspouts to comply with municipal requirements resulted in a system that was not constructed in a workmanlike manner.

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 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 appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's fiancé was caught driving it while his license was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as relying on relatives and friends for transportation, and that the inconvenience and financial impact did not meet the threshold for exceptional hardship.

Toronto Fire Services appealed a decision of the Fire Marshal rescinding an inspection order issued to the respondent property owner.

The order required the owner to replace windows surrounding third-floor balconies to protect occupants using the balconies as areas of refuge during a fire.

The Fire Marshal had rescinded the order because the balconies were previously approved as a compliance alternative.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the previous approvals exempted the building from strict retrofit requirements, the inspector's broad powers to order fire safety measures justified requiring protection for the third-floor windows directly exposing the balconies.

However, the Commission found that windows on lower floors did not require protection given the building's fire alarm system and protected primary exits.

The Commission amended the Fire Marshal's decision to require protection only for the third-floor windows, while allowing the owner to submit alternative compliance options.

The appellants appealed the removal of two animals from their premises under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Following a case conference, the appellants failed to produce documents, respond to communications from the Board, or appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Board concluded that the appellants did not intend to pursue the appeal and dismissed it as abandoned.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for 'alcohol abuse disorder'.

The suspension was based on a substance use assessment by the appellant's family doctor, which noted daily drinking and two prior impaired driving convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the doctor's conclusion was not supported by objective medical evidence, as the appellant's biochemical markers for alcohol abuse were within normal ranges.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence that his drinking was controlled and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of disciplinary offences and ordered dismissed.

He appealed to the Commission.

After the appeal was heard but before a decision was rendered, the appellant retired.

The Commission held that pursuant to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act, it lacks jurisdiction to continue with an appeal or render a decision once an appellant is no longer a police officer.

The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn the final argument of her appeal to allow time to seek correction of her medical records under section 55 of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing the evidence was inadmissible.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding no prejudice to the respondent or risk to the public, and directed that the proposed evidence be treated similarly to a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons following reports of binge drinking and elevated biochemical markers indicative of alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from an ongoing, untreated addiction to alcohol and lacks insight into his condition.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of her appeal from the Registrar's decision refusing to grant her registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The appellant argued that an adjournment was necessary to review a recently obtained clinical report and newly disclosed FSCO reports.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding would risk prejudice and unfairness to the appellant, and noting there was no risk to the public as the appellant was not currently engaged in real estate dealings.

The appellant brought a motion seeking production of inspection orders issued to 102 other properties by the respondent.

The appellant argued these documents were relevant to show that the respondent's inspectors treated a fire alarm acoustics guideline as mandatory.

The tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of inspection orders that specifically dealt with acoustic issues related to fire alarm systems, subject to redactions for privacy.

The Office of the Fire Marshal brought a motion to intervene in an appeal regarding a fire safety inspection order.

The appellant challenged the inspector's jurisdiction to enforce technical guidelines issued by the Fire Marshal.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion, adding the Fire Marshal as a party limited to the issue of its jurisdiction to make the guideline and its effect on fire inspections, without the right to argue the merits of the underlying appeal or augment the record.