Administrative Law

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for theft, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order with community privileges, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Board found that an absolute discharge would pose a significant public safety threat due to likely medication non-compliance and substance abuse leading to decompensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court rejected arguments that the Board failed to consider the appellant's improvements or misapprehended evidence regarding substance use, emphasizing that appellate review is limited to reasonableness and does not involve reweighing evidence.

Fresh evidence regarding recent decompensation reinforced the Board's conclusion.

The appellant sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that dismissed her appeal of a Law Society Tribunal decision.

The appellant also sought to set aside the Divisional Court's decision based on an apprehension of bias, arguing that the lack of hearing transcripts hindered her ability to prove bias.

The Court of Appeal applied the four-factor test for extensions of time, finding that while the appellant intended to appeal and there was no prejudice to the respondent, the delay was significant and the bias allegations lacked particulars and cogent evidence.

The court concluded that the proposed appeal lacked merit and dismissed the motion for an extension of time with costs.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on their Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 38-storey residential building.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 37-storey proposal that includes 19 replacement rental townhouse units and a parkland dedication.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending satisfaction of conditions.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit an application for a permit to take water for a constructed dam.

At a case management conference, the Ministry advised that a proposed amendment to O. Reg. 387/04 would exempt the dam from the permit requirement, but the timeline for the amendment was unknown.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing for May 2022, noting the matter had been languishing for over two years.

The appellant, an Acting Sergeant, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty for failing to ensure that appropriate reports were submitted following a serious incident involving a tactical takedown of a man mistakenly believed to be carrying a concealed weapon.

The appellant argued there was no clear policy or system requiring him to check reports against calls for service.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that a clear policy existed requiring supervisors to ensure complete reports are filed, and that the failure to do so in such a serious incident warranted the finding of Neglect of Duty.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for deceit.

The conviction was based on an allegation that he falsely denied possessing his police notebooks, having signed a receipt for them.

On appeal, the Commission admitted new evidence showing the notebooks were actually found in a secure police storage room two years later.

The Commission overturned the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer made manifest errors and drew erroneous conclusions, as the evidence did not support an intent to deceive.

The York Regional Police Service brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a disciplinary penalty imposed on Staff Sergeant Kyle pending his appeal.

The officer had pled guilty to discreditable conduct following criminal convictions for impaired driving and assault, and agreed to a 12-month demotion to sergeant.

He appealed only the hearing officer's direction regarding his status after the 12-month period.

The Commission held it had the authority under section 25(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to lift the stay.

Finding that the officer would suffer no practical prejudice by commencing the undisputed 12-month demotion while his appeal on the post-demotion status proceeded, the Commission granted the motion and lifted the stay.

The Appellant, an Acting Sergeant, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty for failing to ensure that appropriate reports were submitted following a serious police incident involving a tactical takedown of a man mistakenly believed to be armed.

The Appellant argued there was no clear policy or training requiring supervisors to check reports against calls for service.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, upholding the Hearing Officer's finding that supervisors have a clear duty to ensure complete reports are filed, and the failure to do so in this serious incident constituted Neglect of Duty.

The appellant, a civilian complainant, appealed the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the unauthorized use of the CPIC system.

The officer had used CPIC to obtain information about the appellant, who was dating the officer's former girlfriend, and subsequently threatened the appellant.

The officer pled guilty and received a five-day suspension for this specific count.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it lacked credibility and relevance.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the five-day suspension, concluding it was a fair and appropriate penalty that fell within the acceptable range for unauthorized CPIC use, balancing deterrence with the officer's potential for rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed the penalty of a five-day suspension imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the unauthorized use of the CPIC system.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce new documentary evidence, which the Commission dismissed as the evidence was not relevant, significant, or credible.

On the merits of the appeal, the Commission reviewed the penalty and found that a five-day suspension was a fair and appropriate sanction for the breach of confidence, consistent with prior decisions involving similar misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations of off-duty sexual harassment and an inappropriate relationship with a 16-year-old girl.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing process was fair, the Hearing Officer applied the correct 'clear and convincing evidence' standard of proof, and the credibility findings were supported by the evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, the officer's extensive prior disciplinary record, and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations of an inappropriate off-duty relationship and sexual harassment involving a 16-year-old girl.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice, that the hearing officer applied the wrong burden of proof, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard, made reasonable credibility assessments, and imposed a penalty consistent with similar cases of serious misconduct.

The appellant, a police officer, resigned from the Ontario Provincial Police after being charged criminally and facing disciplinary proceedings.

He alleged his resignation was involuntary and amounted to constructive dismissal, and appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the appellant voluntarily resigned to avoid a criminal trial, meaning there was no disciplinary decision to appeal.

Furthermore, even if there had been a decision, the appeal was filed beyond the mandatory 30-day statutory limitation period.

The appellant, a police officer, was charged criminally and suspended.

He subsequently agreed with the Crown to resign and take early retirement in exchange for the withdrawal of the criminal charges.

Months later, he appealed to the Commission, alleging constructive dismissal and harassment.

The Commission dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the appellant voluntarily resigned to avoid a criminal trial, meaning there was no disciplinary decision to appeal, and in any event, the appeal was filed outside the mandatory 30-day statutory limitation period.

The appellant police officer appealed three findings of guilt (one count of insubordination and two counts of deceit) and the penalty of a twelve-month reduction in rank.

The charges arose from his investigation of a domestic assault and his subsequent testimony at the accused's trial, as well as his failure to promptly obey an order to provide a written report during the ensuing disciplinary investigation.

The Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding that the order to provide a statement for disciplinary purposes did not violate section 7 of the Charter and that the officer failed to comply in a timely manner even after related criminal proceedings concluded.

However, the Commission set aside both deceit convictions, finding the Hearing Officer failed to establish clear and convincing evidence of an intention to deceive regarding the officer's notes and court testimony.

Consequently, the penalty was varied from a one-year demotion to a forfeiture of 24 hours' pay for the single remaining conviction of insubordination.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he was found guilty of discreditable conduct.

The disciplinary charge followed a criminal conviction for common assault arising from an incident where the officer assaulted a handcuffed, intoxicated prisoner.

The Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's application of the principles of sentencing in police discipline cases, including the officer's failure to admit responsibility, the impact of the criminal conviction on his ability to testify in future proceedings, and his subsequent rehabilitation and academic achievements.

The Commission found no manifest error in principle and upheld the penalty of dismissal.

The applicant complainant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The officer had pleaded guilty to certain charges while others were withdrawn following a plea bargain from which the complainant was excluded.

The respondent police service argued that leave should be denied based on the strict test for interlocutory appeals under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Commission held that it is not bound by the civil rules and has broad discretion under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act to grant leave where 'appropriate'.

Given the novel issues regarding a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the Act's Declaration of Principles, the Commission granted leave to appeal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal after he pointed his loaded service pistol at a fellow officer.

The incident occurred after the fellow officer waved a baton near the appellant's head.

The appellant argued he was in a state of non-insane automatism due to ongoing workplace harassment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer's rejection of the automatism defence was supported by evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty from dismissal to a two-year reduction in rank to third class constable, finding the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the significant provocation the appellant faced from his colleagues and his strong potential for rehabilitation.

The applicant, a complainant in a police disciplinary matter, sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for improperly accessing the CPIC system.

The applicant argued he was denied full participation in the hearing process, particularly regarding plea bargaining that resulted in the withdrawal of other charges.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the novel issues raised concerning a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the fundamental fairness of the proceedings warranted an appeal under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant, a first class constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charge arose after the appellant pointed his loaded service pistol at a fellow officer who was waving a baton near his head.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably rejected the appellant's defence of non-insane automatism based on expert psychiatric evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty.

It found that the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the significant workplace harassment the appellant had endured, which acted as provocation, and to the appellant's strong potential for rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a reduction in rank to third class constable for two years, subject to a detailed return to work plan.