Maureen Helt

The respondent, a former professional engineer, admitted to professional misconduct for certifying a structurally inadequate railing system design that failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee also accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, publication with names, and, should the respondent seek reinstatement, a two-month suspension and a restriction prohibiting him from providing structural engineering services until he passes a specified examination.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to fourth class constable for 18 months, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved fabricating text messages to disparage his ex-wife's new partner and improperly registering individuals as confidential informants to conceal his actions.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by effectively penalizing him for deceit and insubordination, which were not charged, and that the penalty was unduly harsh.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's inferences were reasonably drawn from the Agreed Statement of Facts and the penalty was justified given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding her guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from an incident where the appellant and three other officers responded to a noise complaint and forcibly entered an apartment without a warrant.

The Hearing Officer found the entry unlawful as there were no exigent circumstances, and held the appellant responsible as the supervising officer who directed the entry, while acquitting the other three officers.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapplied the test for discreditable conduct and rendered inconsistent verdicts.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusion that no emergency justified the entry was reasonable, and that the appellant's own evidence establishing her supervisory role and direction to breach the door justified the different verdicts.

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 requested a review of a previous Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to attend a settlement conference.

The appellant argued that it did not receive notice of the conference.

The Board found that the appellant had filed all necessary materials prior to the conference and failed to attend through no fault of its own.

The motion was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

The respondents (MPAC and the City of Cambridge) brought a motion for disclosure of documents related to the appellant Toyota's excess capital and operating cost calculations for its Cambridge plant.

Toyota opposed the motion, arguing it was premature as the information would be in forthcoming expert reports, that the requests lacked specificity, and that it had already disclosed significant material.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that relevance is the primary consideration and that Toyota has an ongoing obligation to disclose relevant documents in its possession.

The Board ordered production of the requested documents, except for a third-party expert report prepared for General Motors, which requires notice to GM.

The appellant appealed an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued by the Director for sewage works on its property.

The appellant argued that the residential septic systems were 'sewage systems' under the Building Code Act, not 'sewage works' under the Ontario Water Resources Act, and therefore the Director lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that because the multiple septic systems on the single parcel of land had a combined design capacity exceeding 10,000 litres per day, they constituted 'sewage works' under the OWRA.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's argument that individual members owned their lots, finding that the appellant was the ultimate owner of the land.

The appeal was dismissed and the Amended Approval was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after she pled guilty to insubordination and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The charges arose from unauthorized CPIC searches and the disclosure of confidential police information to a known drug dealer.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by dismissing motions for abuse of process, a fact finder, and an adjournment, and by failing to give sufficient weight to expert evidence regarding her alcoholism.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no errors in the Hearing Officer's procedural rulings or his weighing of the expert evidence.

The Commission concluded that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct and dismissed the appeal.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a prior Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Relying on the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a non-current value when MPAC fails to meet its burden of proof, the Board found that it had erred in law in the prior decision.

The Board cancelled the previous decision and ordered a rehearing.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Ottawa requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the assessed values of two new properties at zero.

The Board had relied on the Tervita Corp decision due to inadequate evidence of current value.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board cannot assign a value it knows is not current, the Board found it erred in setting the assessments at zero.

The request for review was allowed, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in MPAC v. Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current, MPAC argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not determining the current value and by relying on case law without allowing the parties to make submissions.

The previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a prior Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value of a property and cannot default to a prior assessment it knows is not current, MPAC requested the decision be cancelled.

The property owners supported the cancellation.

The Board allowed the request for review, cancelled the prior decision, and ordered a rehearing to determine the correct current value.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current, MPAC argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without giving parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that set the assessment of a property at its last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

MPAC argued that the Board erred in law by failing to determine the current value, relying on the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky.

The Board agreed, finding that it has a statutory obligation under the Assessment Act to determine the correct current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current.

The Board allowed the request for review, cancelled the previous decision, and ordered a rehearing.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board cannot abdicate its statutory duty to determine current value by reverting to a previous assessment, MPAC argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without seeking submissions from the parties.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board cannot abdicate its statutory duty to determine the current value of a property, MPAC argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without allowing the parties to make submissions.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The moving party requested a review of a previous Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current, the moving party argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without giving parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The request for review was allowed, the decision cancelled, and a rehearing ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that set the assessed value of the subject property at its last uncontested value.

MPAC argued that the Board erred in law by failing to determine the current value of the property, relying on the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky.

The Board agreed, finding that it has a statutory obligation under the Assessment Act to determine the correct current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current due to inadequate evidence.

The Board cancelled the original decision and ordered a rehearing.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a prior Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current, MPAC argued the prior decision should be cancelled.

The Board agreed, finding it erred in its previous approach.

The request for review was allowed, the prior decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered to determine the correct current value of the property.