David B. Butt

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of a one-year demotion from first-class to second-class constable, imposed after he was found guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved falsely recording an authorized missed lunch break and repeatedly refusing to surrender a personal journal referenced in his memo book.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably considered the officer's prior disciplinary history, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the principles of progressive discipline in determining the penalty.

The appellant police officer brought a motion on consent to lift the automatic stay of his penalty of demotion pending his appeal.

The officer had pled guilty to discreditable conduct for unaccounted absences and was demoted for one year with ongoing conditions.

He abandoned his appeal of the demotion but maintained his appeal of the conditions.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to lift the stay and granted the motion, noting that the appeal was not frivolous, the officer sought to serve his demotion immediately to avoid prejudice to future promotion opportunities, and the employer consented.

The appellant police officers appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from a warrantless entry into a tenant's private residence while responding to a landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid rent.

The appellants argued the Hearing Officer failed to consider their good faith and intentions.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably applied an objective test based on the reasonable expectations of the public, and correctly concluded that the officers' unauthorized entry constituted a trespass that would bring discredit to the police service.

The Appellant, a police sergeant, pled guilty to discreditable conduct involving time theft and was penalized with a one-year demotion to First Class Constable along with eight conditions for reinstatement.

He appealed the conditions but abandoned the appeal of the demotion, bringing a motion to lift the automatic stay of the demotion so he could begin serving it immediately.

The Respondent supported the motion.

The Commission granted the motion, finding the appeal was not frivolous, the Appellant could be prejudiced by a delay, and lifting the stay would not adversely affect the consideration of the remaining appeal regarding the conditions.

Three police officers appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty and discreditable conduct arising from their entry into an apartment without a Feeney endorsement or valid consent.

The officers argued the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to admit fresh evidence suggesting the public complainant had set them up, and by misinterpreting police service policies regarding consent.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer had no statutory authority to reopen the hearing to admit fresh evidence after rendering a finding of guilt.

The Commission also held that the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the person who permitted entry was not an 'occupant' capable of giving lawful consent was reasonable.

The Chief of Police and respondent officers sought to vary a previous Tribunal order requiring the production of documents related to previous race-based complaints against the officers, proposing to redact complainant identities.

They also sought a stay of proceedings pending judicial review.

The Tribunal declined to vary the order, finding the proposed redaction and contact method inappropriate and unnecessary.

The Tribunal also denied the stay, finding no exceptional circumstances and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as delaying production would prejudice the complainant and the Commission.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial profiling and assault by police officers, the Tribunal reviewed records of past complaints against the respondent officers to determine if they should be produced.

The Tribunal ordered the production of a 2001 complaint alleging a racially motivated assault at the same police division, finding its probative value outweighed potential prejudice.

A 2007 complaint lacking similarity was withheld.

The Tribunal declined to redact personal identifiers from the produced records but imposed conditions restricting their use to the current proceeding or any subsequent judicial review.

The complainant alleged discrimination in the provision of policing services on the basis of mental illness.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues, including requests to strike pleadings, requests for further particulars, and requests for document production.

The Tribunal struck portions of the pleadings that unreasonably expanded the scope of the original complaint, such as allegations regarding police reference checks and historical arrests under the Mental Health Act.

The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction to hear allegations that internal police investigations of the complainant's complaints were discriminatory.

The Tribunal ordered the complainant to provide further particulars for certain allegations and ordered the production of specific documents related to the complainant's interactions with the police, declining to apply the O'Connor two-step process for production.

The moving parties sought a stay of an interim Tribunal decision ordering the production of police discipline records pending their application for judicial review.

The Tribunal applied the traditional three-part test for a stay, considering it in the context of the revised Human Rights Code, which emphasizes expeditious resolution and limits judicial review of procedural rulings.

The Tribunal found that producing the records to the adjudicator would not cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured proceeding without delay.

The request for a stay was denied, though a brief extension was granted to allow the moving parties to seek a stay from the Divisional Court.

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.

The Commission and the complainant sought the production of information in police files about allegations by third parties of discrimination by the respondent police officers.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of colour, creed, place of origin, and race, including physical assaults and harassment.

The Tribunal considered the application of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. McNeil regarding the production of police disciplinary records.

The Tribunal found that the requested records were arguably relevant as similar fact evidence.

To balance the potential probative value against the prejudicial effects and privacy interests of the officers and third-party complainants, the Tribunal ordered the Chief of Police to produce the records to the Tribunal for review prior to determining whether they should be disclosed to the parties.

The complainant requested that the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing the case, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the adjudicator had previously represented the Toronto Police Association, which sought to intervene in the proceeding.

The adjudicator dismissed the recusal request, finding that his prior role as a junior lawyer representing the Association did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias, especially given the standard one-year cooling-off period had passed.

The Tribunal also granted the Association's request to intervene on a limited basis regarding a production request.

The complainant and the Commission requested production of documents relating to complaints filed by the complainant under the Police Services Act.

The Toronto Police Association requested leave to intervene to make submissions on the production of these documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, finding it appropriate given the potential impact on the Association's members and its ability to provide their perspective.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of a loss of five days' pay imposed after he was found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to submit an Arrest Report prior to a fingerprint and court date.

The appellant argued the penalty was excessive and that the hearing officer erred by considering his entire disciplinary history rather than just a prior informal reprimand for the same misconduct.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that an officer's entire disciplinary history is a relevant consideration for progressive discipline and that the hearing officer applied the correct dispositional principles without manifest error.

The appellant appealed a decision unsealing search warrant material that contained the names of police officers who had not been charged with any offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the application judge's conclusion that the public interest in open justice outweighed the officers' privacy interests and that a publication ban was not warranted.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the trial judge.

The appellant and her common law husband were charged with aggravated assault and failure to provide necessaries of life to their infant son.

At trial, the appellant did not testify, and counsel for the co-accused commented on this failure.

The trial judge instructed the jury on an objective standard for failure to provide necessaries.

During deliberations, the jury asked if they had to agree on guilty or not guilty, and the judge answered they must be unanimous one way or the other.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the judge's answer to the jury's question improperly suggested they did not have the right to disagree, necessitating a new trial.

The Court also held that the objective standard of fault for failure to provide necessaries under s. 215 of the Criminal Code does not violate s. 7 of the Charter.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a trial that hinged on the credibility of the accused versus the complainant.

During the main charge, the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, in a brief recharge requested by the Crown, the judge erroneously framed the core issue as whether the jury believed the complainant or the accused, omitting the third alternative that they might disbelieve the accused but still have a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that, despite the error in the recharge, the charge read as a whole adequately instructed the jury on the proper standard of proof, given the correct instructions in the main charge and the short time elapsed before the recharge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The complainant, a former zone affiliate of the respondent employer bargaining agency, alleged that the respondent breached its duty of fair representation under section 151(2) of the Labour Relations Act by excluding it from the Mechanical Trade Bargaining Committee (MTBC).

The complainant had withdrawn from full membership due to concerns over the involvement of non-union employers but sought continued participation in labour relations matters.

The Board found that the respondent acted arbitrarily by failing to properly consult with the complainant regarding negotiations.

The Board ordered the respondent to grant the complainant observer status at MTBC meetings, though it declined to order full voting rights.