Laura Hodgson

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar argued that the sole director's past failure to pay a disciplinary fine, subsequent bankruptcy, and current financial position demonstrated financial irresponsibility.

The Tribunal found that while there were no reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty, the director's financial history and lack of insight established that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of 32 hours forfeiture.

The officer had submitted profane and insulting comments criticizing equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives to an anonymous virtual suggestion box.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer reasonably concluded the comments were not protected by case-by-case privilege and the proceedings were not an abuse of process.

The Commission also held that the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the officer's freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, as the penalty targeted the abusive language rather than the expression of dissent.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after an acquaintance was caught driving it with a Criminal Code-related licence suspension.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that she had no alternative transportation options, as she had been using ride-sharing services and had not explored borrowing her sister's vehicle or renting a car.

The appellant, a police officer on leave with PTSD, was found guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for refusing to attend interviews, harassing another officer, and making numerous offensive and derogatory posts about the police service on Twitter.

The Hearing Officer ordered her dismissal.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decisions to deny the appellant's requests for an indefinite adjournment and to proceed in absentia.

The Commission found no procedural unfairness and upheld the findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The Commission also conducted a Doré analysis and concluded that the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the appellant's Charter right to freedom of expression.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of unlawful exercise of authority and neglect of duty.

The charges arose from an incident where the appellant continued the arrest of an individual after learning the individual had been mistakenly identified as the target of an investigation, and failed to provide rights to counsel.

The Commission confirmed the finding of unlawful exercise of authority, holding that the continued arrest after the misidentification became known was unlawful.

However, the Commission revoked the finding of neglect of duty, finding the hearing officer erred in law by relying on his own experience rather than uncontradicted evidence regarding whose duty it was to provide rights to counsel.

A new hearing was ordered for the neglect of duty charge and the penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct and ordering his dismissal, as well as the decision to prospectively lift the automatic stay of penalty.

The officer had requested an adjournment for medical reasons, which was denied.

His counsel then withdrew, and the hearing proceeded in his absence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the adjournment was properly denied, proceeding in absentia without confirming the officer had notice or intended to retain new counsel was procedurally unfair.

The Commission also found the Hearing Officer erred in lifting the stay of penalty by failing to consider the merits of the appeal and the prejudice to the officer.

The findings of misconduct were quashed, a new hearing was ordered, and the stay of penalty was restored.

The appellant trucking company appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order of its Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The Registrar based the cancellation on the appellant's poor safety record, ongoing non-compliance with fleet limitation orders, and affiliation with a related company that previously had its CVOR cancelled.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's overall violation rate remained over 100% despite progressive sanctions and multiple chances to improve.

The Tribunal confirmed the cancellation order, concluding there was reason to believe the appellant would not operate commercial vehicles safely and that alternative sanctions were not appropriate.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and ordering a forfeiture of 80 hours.

The misconduct stemmed from a $50 donation the appellant made to the Freedom Convoy while off-duty and on an unpaid leave of absence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the finding of misconduct, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the protests were illegal at the time of the donation.

The Commission declined to hear an abuse of process argument raised for the first time on appeal.

Although the Hearing Officer erred by failing to conduct a Doré analysis to balance the appellant's section 2(b) Charter right to freedom of expression against the statutory objectives of the Police Services Act, the Commission conducted the analysis and found the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the right.

The penalty of 80 hours forfeiture was affirmed as reasonable.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after her partner was caught driving it without a required ignition interlock device.

The Tribunal found that the appellant could not rely on the exceptional hardship ground because her vehicle had been previously impounded within the last two years.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The public complainants appealed the penalty imposed on a police officer found guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct in relation to the sudden death investigation of an Indigenous man.

The Hearing Officer had ordered an 18-month demotion and cultural competency training.

The complainants argued the officer should be dismissed, citing the public interest, the importance of reconciliation, and region-specific demands regarding anti-Indigenous racism.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed all relevant factors, including the public interest and reconciliation, and did not err in concluding that dismissal was not warranted.

The Appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from his role as the lead investigator into the sudden death of an Indigenous man, where he prematurely concluded the death was non-criminal and failed to conduct a basic investigation.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable, including the finding that the Appellant's deficient investigation was rooted in racial bias and stereotypes.

The appeal was dismissed and the findings and penalty were confirmed.

The applicant sought to appeal a penalty decision imposing a two-year demotion for discreditable conduct.

The Notice of Appeal was filed more than 30 days after the applicant received the decision.

The applicant brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the appeal was filed outside the strict 30-day limitation period prescribed by section 87(1) of the Police Services Act, and that the Commission has no statutory jurisdiction to extend this timeline.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report indicating the appellant suffered from a psychiatric illness.

The appellant denied having a mental health condition that interfered with his driving, though he acknowledged previous diagnoses of schizophrenia.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting the lack of medical evidence showing the condition was stable or that a physician supported his return to driving.

The suspension was confirmed.

The Commission previously revoked a Hearing Officer's finding that the respondent officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct for pointing a firearm at the public complainants, substituting a finding of guilt.

The Commission solicited submissions on whether it was in the public interest to vary the penalty at this stage.

Given that the incident occurred over a decade ago and the proceedings had been subject to excessive delay, the Commission determined it was not in the public interest to order a new penalty hearing or to vary the penalty itself.

The original penalty remained unchanged.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 180 days after his wife was caught driving it while her license was suspended according to Ministry of Transportation records.

The appellant appealed the impoundment, arguing that his wife's license was not suspended because her 2015 impaired driving convictions had been stayed on appeal in 2016.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver had failed to notify the Ministry of the stay of charges and had taken no steps to rectify her license status despite receiving notices of suspension and having the vehicle impounded twice previously.

Two police officers appealed findings of misconduct for unlawfully arresting two Black youths for assaulting police, and one officer appealed a finding of excessive force for punching a third youth.

The public complainants cross-appealed the finding that the officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct for pointing his firearm at them.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in his analysis of arrest powers under the Criminal Code but substituted its own finding of misconduct for the unlawful arrests.

The Commission confirmed the finding of excessive force for the punch.

Finally, the Commission revoked the not guilty finding regarding the firearm, finding the Hearing Officer erred by failing to consider the Use of Force Regulation and improperly relying on his own experience, and substituted a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after he was caught driving without an ignition interlock device, contrary to his licence conditions.

He appealed the impoundment on the basis of exceptional hardship, arguing he needed the vehicle for his construction business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish that he had no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he owned three other vehicles and two trailers, and had not inquired into renting a vehicle.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision confirming the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded after her partner drove it while subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant sought reconsideration based on new evidence of financial and emotional hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence would not have affected the original result because the appellant had failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The appellant's motor vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her grandson was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The 84-year-old appellant appealed the impoundment on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no viable alternative transportation due to her age, mobility issues, and limited income, and that the impoundment threatened her health and safety as she had already missed two medical appointments.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her partner was caught driving it while subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant appealed the impoundment, arguing she exercised due diligence in ascertaining her partner's licence status and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the licence conditions and had alternative means of transportation, thus not meeting the threshold for exceptional hardship.