Brian G. Whitehead

The applicant, a self-represented accused in custody facing serious sexual assault charges, sought an order for broader internet and email access to prepare for his upcoming jury trial.

He argued that his current limited access to) of the Criminal Code this ruling is subject to a publication ban and shall not be transmitted, reproduced or broadcast in any manner until the jury is sequestered or a further order of this court.

The applicant police officer's appeal of a misconduct finding was previously dismissed by the Commission for failure to perfect the appeal.

The applicant subsequently filed a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the dismissal.

The Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Notice because its prior decision was a final order, rendering the Commission functus officio.

The Commission noted it has no statutory power to reconsider its decisions and that a Notice of Constitutional Question cannot initiate a new proceeding.

The applicant's proper remedy is to seek judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct and penalty of demotion.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal because the appellant failed to perfect it by obtaining the necessary transcripts of the disciplinary hearing.

Despite multiple pre-hearing conferences and directions from the Commission, the appellant failed to provide the transcripts or establish that the audio recordings were incapable of transcription.

The Commission found that the appellant had not shown a bona fide intention to pursue the appeal diligently.

The respondent's motion was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application, arguing his detention was unlawful due to a new information adding charges without a new arrest and the failure to hold timely detention review hearings under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court maintained jurisdiction over the appellant despite the new information, as he was lawfully before the court.

It further affirmed that the failure to hold a s. 525 detention review hearing does not automatically render detention unlawful; the appropriate remedy is an immediate review, which the appellant was offered and eventually received.

The court also found no abuse of process justifying a stay of proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Parole Board decision suspending her parole and issuing a Canada-wide arrest warrant.

The applicant had continued to report to her parole officer for months after the suspension, unaware of the warrant, and was even told she had successfully completed her sentence.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying early intervention despite the usual requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Court held that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to effectively notify the applicant's parole officers of the suspension, and quashed the decision and related warrants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard two motions arising from two notices of appeal filed by the appellant, Deepan Budlakoti.

The Crown sought to quash a 'Charter Appeal' concerning a pre-trial application dismissal, arguing it was an interlocutory order without a right of appeal.

Mr. Budlakoti sought reconsideration of a decision refusing his application for appointment of counsel for his 'Habeas Appeal' challenging detention conditions.

The court granted the Crown's motion, quashing the Charter Appeal as an interlocutory criminal appeal.

Mr. Budlakoti's motion for counsel was dismissed, as the court agreed there was no arguable ground of appeal for the Habeas Appeal.

This decision provides reasons for an inquiry into an incident where the accused, David Baichoo, appeared in a security gown, naked underneath, on the first day of his first-degree murder trial.

The incident, which led to the loss of a trial day and compromised the dignity of the proceedings, was attributed to the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC).

The court found that the TSDC's reliance on unreliable body scans for contraband and the indifference of staff, particularly Sgt. Polanski, led to the deplorable situation.

Despite the subsequent abandonment of the defence's application for costs, the court issued these reasons to highlight systemic failures in the treatment of accused persons and to ensure accountability.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of Discreditable Conduct and ordering her resignation or dismissal.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty domestic incident where the appellant held a knife to her throat while holding her child and threatened to drive into a transport truck.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer made numerous errors, including failing to properly consider her mental state and PTSD diagnosis.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police service and that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severity of the conduct and the appellant's disciplinary history.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of forfeiture of 80 hours imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved transporting his family in an OPP vehicle without authorization and being less than forthcoming during the subsequent investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made an overriding error in principle by accepting a guilty plea based on the appellant driving a short distance, but then using a factual finding that the appellant drove the entire four-hour trip as an aggravating factor to increase the penalty.

The Commission varied the penalty to a forfeiture of 60 hours, finding it more reasonable given the actual basis of the conviction and the mitigating factors, including the appellant's exemplary employment history.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed two decisions granting habeas corpus relief to an individual detained on account of an outstanding deportation order.

The applicant had been detained for approximately 25 months on immigration grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision to release the applicant on habeas corpus, finding that the detention was lengthy and of uncertain duration and could no longer be justified as furthering the machinery of immigration control.

However, the Court found that the application judge erred by assuming jurisdiction to supervise any subsequent re-incarceration by immigration authorities.

The Court struck the problematic supervisory clause and provided guidance on appropriate conditions for release in immigration detention cases.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit for falsifying Daily Activity Reporting (DAR) records.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in finding an intent to deceive, misapprehended the evidence, and improperly admitted statements he made during a compelled interview under section 83(6) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably inferred an intent to deceive from the detailed falsifications and the potential benefit to the appellant.

The Commission also held that section 83(6) protects an officer from being compelled to testify at a hearing, but does not preclude the admission of statements made during a disciplinary investigation.

The applicants, an immigration detainee and a remand detainee housed in a maximum security provincial correctional facility, brought an application for habeas corpus and a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

They alleged that frequent and unpredictable lockdowns, primarily caused by staff shortages, violated their Charter rights.

During lockdowns, inmates were confined to their double-bunked cells for 24 hours a day with limited access to showers, phones, and programs.

The court found that the conditions during the lockdowns, which occurred approximately 50% of the time, constituted cruel and unusual treatment in violation of s. 12 of the Charter.

The court declined to order a systemic remedy or a transfer, but awarded Charter damages of $60,000 to the immigration detainee (payable jointly by Ontario and Canada) and $25,000 to the remand detainee (payable by Ontario).

Following a finding of misconduct against Mayor Daryl Bennett for his actions as a member of the Peterborough Lakefield Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission determined the appropriate penalty.

The Commission rejected the argument that it lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty due to the disbandment of the Board, finding that a liberal interpretation of the Police Services Act required accountability for past conduct to maintain public confidence.

Given the severity of the misconduct, which included undermining the Board and the Chief of Police, and the lack of remorse, the Commission ordered that Mayor Bennett be removed from the Board.

A self‑represented immigration detainee brought a habeas corpus application challenging the legality of his ongoing detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and alleging restricted access to legal resources while held in a provincial correctional institution.

The respondents argued the matter was res judicata and that the Superior Court should decline jurisdiction because the Federal Court provides a comprehensive statutory review scheme for immigration detention decisions.

The court held the res judicata argument was not established on the record.

However, it found the evidentiary record insufficient to determine whether the applicant had a meaningful remedy available through Federal Court judicial review.

The court therefore reserved its decision on jurisdiction and the merits and adjourned the application to allow the applicant to attempt to pursue remedies in Federal Court and obtain legal resources.

Following a finding of misconduct against Greg Oliver, a member and former Chair of the Stirling-Rawdon Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a penalty hearing.

The Commission found that Oliver engaged in a deliberate and persistent course of conduct that discredited and compromised the integrity of the Board and the police service, particularly through his antagonistic and disrespectful treatment of the Chief of Police.

Applying the Gardner penalty assessment factors, the Commission concluded that Oliver's lack of remorse, failure to heed advice, and fundamental misunderstanding of his role as a public steward warranted the most severe penalty.

Oliver was ordered removed from the Board.

The appellant, an HIV-positive inmate, was placed in administrative segregation due to safety concerns regarding his sexual relations with other inmates.

He applied for habeas corpus, which was dismissed by the application judge despite findings of minor procedural flaws in the segregation review process.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the application judge lacked discretion to deny the writ once a breach of procedural fairness was found.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the procedural flaws did not render the detention unlawful and that the application judge properly exercised his residual discretion to deny the writ.

The applicant, an inmate awaiting sentencing for attempted murder and aggravated sexual assault related to HIV transmission, applied for habeas corpus to be removed from administrative segregation and placed in the general prison population with a cellmate.

The applicant argued a denial of procedural fairness and failure to conduct mandated five-day reviews.

The court found that while there was a denial of procedural fairness in how the reviews were documented, the applicant was aware of the reasons for his segregation.

Due to the high risk the applicant posed to other inmates, the court held that administrative segregation was lawful and necessary for safety.

The application was dismissed, but the institution was ordered to continue offering alternative accommodation proposals.

The applicants brought an application for judicial review to challenge the Chief Coroner's decision not to hold an inquest into the death of their son.

At the hearing, the applicants withdrew their request for an inquest and instead sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Coroner's Office to change the manner of death determination from suicide to undetermined.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants only had standing to challenge the decision not to hold an inquest, and that mandamus could not be used to compel the Coroner to exercise discretionary investigative functions or to usurp the role of a coroner's jury.

The applicant, a member of a police services board, brought a motion seeking the recusal of a panel member from his disciplinary hearing.

The applicant argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the panel member had previously adjudicated a disciplinary matter involving the Chief of Police, whose conduct the applicant claimed was factually connected to his own charges.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding no material connection between the two cases that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the panel member lacked an open mind.

The prior decision involved a penalty following a guilty plea and made no findings regarding the applicant.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed requests by the complainant and the Commission for the production of records relating to other complaints of racial discrimination against the personal respondents, who are civilian court officers.

Applying the principles from a concurrent decision, the Tribunal ordered the records produced to the Tribunal for review prior to disclosure to balance probative value against privacy interests.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of officer badge numbers and a photograph of the complainant, but declined to order the production of correctional officers' names due to security concerns.