Alexander J. Sinclair

The moving party (appellant) sought to amend or vary a previous appeal decision to include severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, arguing that evidence of the respondent's payroll was implicitly in the trial record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it did not fall under Rule 59.06(1) for accidental slips or omissions, nor Rule 59.06(2) for new facts or fraud, as the moving party was attempting to re-argue an issue already considered and declined.

The court reiterated that it is not its role to scour the record for evidence not relied upon by parties.

The respondent's attempt to introduce fresh evidence without leave was also rejected.

The appellant employee appealed a judgment upholding his dismissal for cause after a workplace incident involving non-consensual touching of a co-worker.

The appeal challenged factual findings, the just cause conclusion, and sought Employment Standards Act (ESA) benefits and punitive damages for litigation misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding just cause and punitive damages, but allowed the appeal for ESA termination pay, finding the conduct did not meet the "wilful misconduct" standard for disentitlement.

The court also set aside the trial costs due to the respondent's egregious litigation misconduct, ordering no costs of the trial.

The applicant sought judicial review of two HRTO decisions regarding the interpretation of a release signed to settle a human rights complaint against the police.

The HRTO had ruled that the release also covered an earlier, separate human rights complaint that was under reserve, and subsequently set aside its merits decision in that earlier complaint.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's interpretation of the release unreasonable, as it failed to properly consider the factual matrix and ambiguity in the settlement documents.

The court set aside both HRTO decisions, concluding the release did not apply to the earlier complaint.

The applicant police service sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on a police officer from an 18-month demotion to a 40-hour forfeiture.

The Commission had found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the officer twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and by failing to ensure consistency of disposition with a comparator case.

The Divisional Court held that the Commission's decision was unreasonable, as it misapplied the Kienapple principle by failing to consider the lack of legal nexus between the offences, and misapprehended the facts of the comparator case.

The Commission's decision was set aside and the Hearing Officer's penalty was restored.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision which found that the respondent police service did not discriminate against her when officers apprehended her under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was taken to the hospital after officers spent an hour trying to convince her to attend voluntarily.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no defect in the Tribunal's proceedings or its conclusion that the officers had cause to apprehend the applicant.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination, discreditable conduct, and deceit, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from the appellant's failure to assist two members of the public with criminal record checks outside regular business hours, contrary to orders, and his subsequent deceit to a supervisor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the findings of misconduct, finding the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments reasonable.

However, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the appellant twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and failing to apply the Kienapple principle.

The penalty was varied from an 18-month demotion to a forfeiture of 40 hours.

Police chiefs brought an application under s. 50 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to enforce arbitration awards ordering a police services board to pay contractual entitlements following the dissolution of a regional police service.

The respondent argued the Arbitration Act did not apply because the arbitration was conducted pursuant to the Police Services Act and that enforcement should be stayed due to a pending judicial review application.

The court held that disputes over remuneration and working conditions of a chief and deputy chief fall outside Part VIII of the Police Services Act, meaning the statutory exclusion of the Arbitration Act did not apply.

Because none of the statutory grounds in s. 50(3) for refusing enforcement were present, the court was required to enforce the awards.

Judgment was therefore granted enforcing the arbitral awards.

The Midland Police Services Board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to reduce its civilian staff by terminating eight civilian radio operators and outsourcing dispatch and communications services to the Owen Sound Police Service.

The Commission held a public meeting to hear from the Board, the Midland Police Association, affected employees, and the public.

The Commission found that the proposed outsourcing would maintain adequate and effective policing in Midland, noting the modern facilities and successful track record of the Owen Sound communications centre.

As the parties reached a settlement regarding severance for the affected employees, the Commission consented to the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services based on colour and age contrary to the Human Rights Code after being detained by police and charged with trespass.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the police officer's actions were based on a property owner's complaint about two young males entering a wooded area suspected of marijuana cultivation, the applicant's unusual explanation of looking for a Sasquatch, and his use of a rental car, rather than his age or colour.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.