Employment and Labour Law

The defendants, TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. and The Toronto-Dominion Bank, brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the plaintiff, David G. Durno's, Statement of Claim.

The grounds for the motion were that the disputed claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process or an improper collateral attack on Durno's settlement agreement with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) and IIROC's approval decision.

The plaintiff argued that his claims for breach of employment contract were not a collateral attack on the settlement, as he was not relitigating admissions but seeking damages for the defendants' alleged failure to supervise and alert him to regulatory concerns.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the disputed claims related to a breach of contract and did not constitute an abuse of process or a collateral attack.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for insubordination and breach of confidence, as well as the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal.

The charges arose from an unauthorized CPIC check on a surveillance vehicle involved in a joint forces investigation, and the subsequent disclosure of that information to an undercover officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the credibility assessments and factual determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was also upheld given the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's lack of remorse, and the paramount importance of protecting the CPIC database.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for deceit and the penalty of demotion imposed for three counts of misconduct, including unauthorized access to police databases (CPIC and RMS) and deceit during a professional standards interview.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the officer deliberately lied to investigators to distance himself from an individual with a criminal record.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of demotion from First-Class to Third-Class Constable for one year, finding it consistent with the seriousness of the multiple breaches and the officer's deceit.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for neglect of duty and deceit arising from unauthorized CPIC queries, spending excessive time on a follow-up call with a personal acquaintance, and making false notebook entries.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission admitted some fresh affidavit evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that no manifest errors were made.

The applicant police association applied to determine the status of the administrative assistant to the police service.

The tribunal found that the position met the requirements of a 'senior officer' under section 114 of the Police Services Act due to its confidential nature, as the employee had unfettered access to restricted documents and assisted with labour relations.

However, because there was no senior officers' association in the municipality, the tribunal ruled that the position could not be excluded from the bargaining unit and must be included in the applicant's collective agreement.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to neglect of duty and discreditable conduct after leaving his shift without permission to visit a casino.

At the disciplinary hearing, a joint submission proposed a penalty of 60 hours loss of leave.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission without providing reasons and imposed a demotion in rank, which was upheld by the Board.

On appeal, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer and the Board erred by failing to provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the joint submission.

Given the appellant's clear record and mitigating factors, the Commission set aside the demotions and imposed the jointly submitted penalty of 60 hours loss of leave.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for insubordination after leaving his issued firearm in an insecure locker.

The officer argued the offence was one of strict liability and he had no intention to leave the locker open, blaming the quality of the lock.

The Commission agreed it was a strict liability offence but found the officer failed to exercise reasonable care by not double-checking the lock.

The Commission also dismissed an allegation of bias regarding the prosecutor's promotion to Chief of Police and upheld the penalty of 24 hours forfeiture of time off as consistent with similar cases.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 72 hours forfeiture of time off following a guilty plea to discreditable conduct for using profane, abusive, or insulting language related to sex toward a female colleague.

The Commission upheld the finding that the single incident constituted a poisoned environment and that the hearing officer appropriately considered the impact on the victim.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to 45 hours forfeiture, finding that the police service's management shared responsibility for allowing a workplace culture of inappropriate conversation without having a sexual harassment policy in place.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services held a hearing into the conduct of the members of the Wallaceburg Police Services Board.

The Board had laid off three members of the police service (two cadets and one civilian communicator) to meet budget cuts, without obtaining the Commission's consent under section 40 of the Police Services Act.

The Commission found that the layoffs constituted a reduction in the size of the force, requiring consent, and that the Board's reliance on the probationary termination provisions in section 44 was improper.

The Commission concluded that the Board members' actions constituted misconduct and a failure to perform their duties in a satisfactory manner.

The four current members of the Board were removed from their positions.

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

The misconduct involved the officer pointing his loaded service revolver at his partner and himself while intoxicated off-duty.

The Commission dismissed a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence, applying the Palmer test.

The Commission upheld the adjudicator's credibility findings and conviction, noting the evidence was clear and convincing.

The penalty of dismissal was also upheld, as the officer's reckless mishandling of a firearm while intoxicated demonstrated a flagrant lack of judgment and abuse of power, justifying termination despite his previous good record.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion to Third Class Constable.

The conviction arose from an off-duty incident where the appellant, while intoxicated, pointed his service firearm at another officer.

The Commission dismissed a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence, applying the Palmer test.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the adjudicator's credibility findings, which preferred the evidence of a civilian witness over the appellant's testimony.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, finding the appellant's careless disregard for firearms training and policies to be a serious breach incompatible with police duties.

Constable Bettes appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty and a penalty of forfeiture of three days' pay arising from his investigation of a motor vehicle accident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and improper procedure, finding that the matter was properly dealt with as an internal disciplinary issue rather than a public complaint.

The Commission upheld the finding of guilt but reduced the penalty to a reprimand, noting the officer's junior status, lack of prior discipline, and the harshness of the original penalty.

The appellant, a Detective Sergeant and Detachment Commander, appealed his convictions on two counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a reduction in rank to First Class Constable.

The charges stemmed from allegations of sexual harassment, including unwelcome comments and physical touching, directed at a civilian dispatcher and a co-op student.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals against both conviction and penalty, finding that the evidence supported the convictions, the procedural rulings were appropriate, and the penalty was the minimum acceptable given the serious nature of sexual harassment by a superior officer.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the penalty of a loss of five days' leave.

The officer had supplied cases of beer to a civilian on Sundays through the back door of a restaurant owned by his wife.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the adjudicator's finding that the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force, rejecting the argument that it was merely an exchange among friends.

The Commission also confirmed the penalty, noting the application of progressive discipline given a prior conviction for discreditable conduct.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct and ordered to resign or be summarily dismissed after verbally abusing a civilian driver during a traffic altercation.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirmed the conviction, finding that off-duty conduct can bring discredit to the police force.

However, the Commission found the penalty of dismissal too severe given the appellant's 11-year service record and the fact that related criminal charges were still pending, which limited the evidence available regarding the full incident.

The penalty was reduced to a demotion from First Class Constable to Fourth Class Constable.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his use of profanity toward a civilian whose vehicle he had towed.

The officer argued that the charge was a nullity due to missing particulars, that the signing of the charge sheet was invalid, and that the hearing board erred in its credibility findings and application of the standard of proof.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the missing particulars did not prejudice the officer, the signing officer adequately considered the allegations, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction on a balance of probabilities.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed his conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

He was convicted of failing to diligently inquire into a complaint from a female constable that she had been indecently assaulted by a male constable.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding ample evidence to support the Hearing Officer's credibility findings.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty of a two-day pay forfeiture, holding that the penalty imposed after a formal hearing is not limited by the lesser penalty proposed during the informal discipline process.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his convictions and penalty of immediate dismissal for discreditable conduct after he assaulted a police sergeant and used abusive language at a police station.

The Commission upheld the assault conviction, finding the appellant's intoxication did not negate the general intent required.

However, the Commission struck one count of discreditable conduct as duplicitous.

On penalty, the Commission found the hearing officer failed to give appropriate weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's 19 years of service and his efforts to address his alcohol consumption.

The penalty of dismissal was set aside and replaced with a reduction in rank to Third Class Constable.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct after having sexual intercourse with a civilian in their patrol car while on duty.

They argued the matter should have been handled as a public complaint, which would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and challenged the admissibility of electronically intercepted conversations under Section 8 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding the complaint was not a public complaint, the Charter arguments failed, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severe breach of public trust.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to deceit and discreditable conduct for falsifying records regarding the discovery of cocaine during a traffic stop.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and unjust, noting a co-accused officer received a lesser penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's lack of remorse and reformation distinguished his case from the co-accused, and his conduct demonstrated unfitness to hold the office of constable.