Administrative Law

The appellants appealed the Town of Whitby Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance to permit the construction of a detached garage.

The variance allowed the accessory structure to have a lot coverage of 99.6% of the main building, whereas the by-law permitted a maximum of 50%.

The appellants raised concerns regarding neighbourhood character, potential business use, and impacts on mature trees.

The Tribunal found that the proposed garage, given the large lot size and small main dwelling, was an appropriate development that respected the heritage character of the neighbourhood.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was authorized.

The new owner of a subject property brought a motion to be substituted as the appellant in appeals originally filed by a now-bankrupt developer regarding Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The municipality and conservation authority brought a joint motion to dismiss the appeals due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the original appellant did not have a valid appeal of the new Official Plan because it failed to make the required statutory submissions.

The Tribunal denied the substitution motion, finding that allowing the new owner to carry on the delayed appeals under an outdated planning policy framework would cause prejudice to the parties and the public interest that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the joint motion to dismiss the appeals on the basis of delay.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing his motion to quash a disciplinary charge for delay.

The appellant had subsequently pled guilty to the charge and served the penalty.

The Commission held that the appeal was not moot, but that the appellant had waived his right to appeal by pleading guilty without reserving his right to challenge jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the Commission found that the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act commenced when investigators obtained independent witness statements, providing a sufficient body of factual information to create a reasonable belief of misconduct.

As the Notice of Hearing was served within six months of that date, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on two counts of discreditable conduct and one count of insubordination, as well as the penalty imposed for one of the discreditable conduct counts.

The charges arose from a traffic stop where the officer allegedly made a rude comment to a motorist and subsequently issued a questionable traffic ticket, and later failed to attend court for the ticket.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the findings of guilt, concluding they were not void of evidentiary foundation.

However, the Commission found the penalty of forfeiture of five days off for issuing the ticket to be excessive given the officer's unblemished record, and reduced it to three days off.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for discreditable conduct and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal, arising from a false affidavit she swore regarding a parking ticket.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction because the Notice of Hearing was served more than six months after the investigators had a sufficient body of factual information to support the allegations, violating the mandatory limitation period in s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The convictions and penalty were quashed.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose from his supervision of a response to a domestic dispute where allegations of assault and threats were made but not properly investigated.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer set unrealistic expectations and that the primary investigating officer was responsible for the investigation's shortcomings.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that as the senior officer on scene, the appellant had a duty to supervise and ensure that domestic violence policies were followed.

The Hearing Officer's conclusion that the appellant neglected his supervisory duties was supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of guilt for neglect of duty and the penalties imposed for that offence, insubordination, and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a civilian employee while on duty and misusing the police email system.

The Commission upheld the finding of guilt for neglect of duty, finding it was supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalties, reducing a two-rank demotion to a one-rank demotion for twelve months, finding the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors such as the appellant's exemplary service record, remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his convictions on three counts of discreditable conduct under the Code of Conduct.

The allegations involved off-duty conduct of a sexual nature, including inappropriate comments, unwanted physical contact, and a historical sexual assault prior to his employment as a police officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility, rejecting his evidence, and applying the standard of clear and convincing evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by an evidentiary foundation and were reasonable in light of the evidence as a whole.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and penalty for the disciplinary offence of being absent without leave.

On Christmas Day, the appellant's supervisor gave him permission to remain at home on standby instead of reporting for his scheduled shift.

The Hearing Officer convicted the appellant, finding that the supervisor lacked authority to grant such leave and the appellant should have known this.

The Commission allowed the appeal and substituted an acquittal, holding that the appellant was entitled to rely on his supervisor's explicit permission as a reasonable excuse for his absence, regardless of whether the supervisor actually possessed the formal authority to grant it.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The conviction arose after the appellant crashed his police cruiser and subsequently provided a false statement to the investigating officer, claiming he had left his roof lights on from an earlier traffic stop.

At the hearing, the appellant called a psychologist to suggest his memory was impaired, but the Hearings Officer rejected this evidence and found the appellant was deceitful.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearings Officer's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the psychological theory of memory contamination was unfounded.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for tampering with evidence and failing to lay appropriate charges.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The appellant appealed the disciplinary conviction and penalty, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to stay the proceedings absent a Crown request, and holding that the Hearing Officer properly relied on the criminal conviction without re-litigating the facts.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as there was no manifest error in principle.

The appellant appealed a decision finding Constable Kelly not guilty of neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The appellant alleged that Constable Kelly failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into a domestic dispute because he was an acquaintance of the appellant's ex-wife's new partner.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding no manifest error in the conclusion that Constable Kelly's actions did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of neglect of duty, and that the threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias was not met.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for neglect of duty, arguing that the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent argued the appeal itself was out of time under section 70(1).

The Commission found that the appeal was filed in a timely manner because the appellant never received written notice of the hearing officer's ruling on the limitation period motion.

However, the Commission also found that the Notice of Hearing was served within the six-month limitation period, as the period commenced when the designated complaints investigator received the appellant's notes and formulated the opinion that misconduct had occurred.

The conviction for neglect of duty was confirmed.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed findings of guilt for four counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit, as well as the penalty of demotion to 3rd class constable.

The misconduct arose from his failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar, his failure to ensure his subordinate investigated, and his subsequent false statement to an investigating officer.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty to a demotion to 2nd class constable for two years, finding the original penalty unduly emphasized punishment and failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's 22-year unblemished record and potential for rehabilitation.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of discreditable conduct: attempting to dissuade a fellow officer from laying criminal charges and assaulting that same officer.

The Commission admitted fresh evidence on appeal but found it would not have affected the outcome of the hearing.

Applying the standard of review, the Commission held that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and credibility assessments were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of neglect of duty for allegedly failing to take a report and make notes regarding a civilian complaint.

The Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, finding that the prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence linking the appellant to the incident.

The only evidence presented was that the appellant's notebook contained no entries and she submitted no report, but there was no direct evidence that she was assigned to the call, involved in the call, or had any contact with the complainant.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest for public intoxication, and the resulting penalty of a 12-day suspension.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the finding of misconduct, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias regarding the Hearing Officer's subsequent employment at OCCPS, and concluding the misconduct finding was supported by evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred by considering post-offence disciplinary matters.

The penalty was reduced to a 4-day suspension.

Two police officers appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Code of Conduct for consuming alcohol while on duty and leaving their detail without permission.

The appellants argued the Hearing Officer erred in finding they were on duty at the relevant time.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding clear and convincing evidence—including sign-in sheets, authorization for a double shift, and the officers' own notes—supported the conclusion that they were on duty.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time for each offence, emphasizing the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty and the need for general deterrence.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination under the Police Services Act and Code of Conduct for failing to attend court.

The appellant had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at overlapping times.

The hearing officer accepted the appellant's evidence that he simply forgot to attend court due to the excitement of being at the medical bureau and hoping to return to work, but concluded this did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, applying Divisional Court precedent that an honest mistake can provide an answer to the charge.

The Commission found that the appellant's forgetfulness in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse and set aside the finding of guilt.

The appellant, a senior police officer, appealed a conviction and reprimand for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant allegedly failed to investigate information provided by the widow of a murdered officer, who claimed that two officers were improperly absent from their duties on the night of the murder.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision to prefer the widow's evidence over the appellant's was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal against both the conviction and the penalty was dismissed.