David Migicovsky

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing her from the Windsor Police Service after she was found guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from an incident where the appellant failed to declare alcohol at the US-Canada border, repeatedly lied to border officers, and subsequently sought to use her position to exact revenge on the border officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding that the appellant's consistent pattern of deceit, lack of remorse, and retaliatory conduct outweighed her positive employment history and irreparably damaged her ability to function as a police officer and the reputation of the police service.

The Appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of 36 counts of misconduct, including unauthorized CPIC and NICHE searches, and imposing a penalty of dismissal.

The Appellant raised 12 grounds of appeal, alleging apprehension of bias, procedural unfairness, evidentiary errors, and an unduly harsh penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's decisions on fact and credibility were reasonable, there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate and consistent with similar cases of unauthorized database access.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside orders of single judges that quashed his application for mandamus and allowed interveners to participate.

The applicant sought to compel three police forces to investigate alleged criminal conduct by the CN Police Service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, affirming that mandamus does not lie to compel police to investigate specific crimes, as police discretion in such matters is not subject to judicial dictation.

The court also upheld the costs awards and strongly criticized counsel for filing voluminous, uncoordinated materials, citing the culture shift required by Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The moving party, a police sergeant, brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of his first appeal regarding 36 counts of misconduct and a penalty of dismissal, and to join it with a second appeal regarding two additional counts of misconduct.

The respondent police service opposed the motion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the motion, finding that joining the complex appeals would unduly complicate and delay the proceedings, particularly given the moving party was self-represented and the first appeal had already experienced significant delays.

The Commission ordered the first appeal to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, marital status, family status, and age, as well as reprisal, following his suspension and the laying of disciplinary charges against him under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to evidence connecting the respondents' actions—including the laying of charges, denial of short-term disability benefits, a resolution meeting, and a firearms seizure—to any protected ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following an earlier order that the defendants pay the plaintiffs’ “costs thrown away” after a trial adjournment.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs and claimed over $79,000 in counsel time plus law clerk fees, reduced by 30 percent for reusable trial preparation work.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified because neither a Rule 49 offer to settle nor sanctionable conduct was present.

Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality, fairness, and reasonableness.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs for counsel at $50,000 plus HST and allowed only disbursements that would need to be incurred again, declining to award law clerk costs at this stage.

Following a previous costs endorsement, the court considered the written costs submissions of the corporate intervener, which had been inadvertently overlooked.

The court fixed the corporate intervener's costs at $6,000 and ordered the responding party (applicant in the main proceeding) to pay them.

Following the quashing of an application for judicial review on the basis that it was an abuse of process, the successful respondents and interveners sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondents, noting the awards should reflect the finding of abuse of process.

The court also awarded partial indemnity costs to the individual interveners, who had been added as parties with a direct interest in the proceedings.

Total costs of $30,350 were ordered against the applicant.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability requested an interim order for the production of the applicant's medical records and OHIP summary, as well as an extension of time for document production.

The Tribunal ordered the production of medical records related to the claimed disabilities for the relevant period, finding them arguably relevant to the issue of accommodation and remedy.

The Tribunal denied the request for the OHIP summary as unnecessarily duplicative and overly broad.

The request for an extension of time was granted on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex and disability discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal by her employer and the Chief of Police.

The respondents requested that allegations predating September 2011 be dismissed as untimely and that the personal respondent be removed.

The applicant sought to amend her application and requested document production.

The Tribunal dismissed the pre-September 2011 allegations as untimely, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application, dismissed her production request as premature, and refused to remove the personal respondent because his individual conduct was a central issue.

The applicant filed a Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance.

The grievance procedure concluded and the applicant's bargaining agent decided not to refer the grievance to arbitration.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application.

The City of Pembroke applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to disband the Pembroke Police Service and contract policing services to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission found that the proposed OPP Integrated Detachment model would provide adequate and effective police services to the municipality.

The Commission granted consent to abolish the municipal police service, subject to the condition that if severance agreements with the affected employees are not reached within 90 days, the matters will proceed to arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, marital status, age, and reprisal in relation to his employment.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent grievance proceeding regarding the applicant's entitlement to sick leave.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues in the grievance and the disability allegations in the application.

To avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondent Corporation sought costs following an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The court found the amount sought excessive, noting that the usual quantum for such applications is around $5,000.

The court declined to award higher costs based on the Corporation's choice to use out-of-province counsel and fixed costs at $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award ordering compensatory and punitive damages against it for organizing illegal strikes.

The union argued the collective agreement limited the arbitrator to declaratory relief for employer grievances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably interpreted the collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code in concluding he had broad remedial authority to award damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to file a grievance regarding his termination and other employment issues after he disclosed his drug use.

The respondent union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the union's failure to act was based on discriminatory factors, as a union's failure to pursue a grievance is not in itself a breach of the Code without a factual foundation linking it to a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent applied for a police records check and discovered it included a withdrawn assault charge.

After the police service refused to remove the reference, the respondent successfully brought an application before the Superior Court under Rule 14.05 to have the reference removed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the police service's appeal, holding that the application judge lacked jurisdiction.

The court found that the police service's decision was an administrative decision subject to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, and therefore the challenge had to be brought by way of an application for judicial review to the Divisional Court, not via a Rule 14.05 application.

The Peel Regional Police received a complaint regarding historical sexual assaults allegedly committed by a former police officer in 1981 or 1982.

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) commenced an investigation, and the police force challenged the SIU's jurisdiction on the basis that the officers had retired and the alleged offences occurred prior to the SIU's creation in 1990.

The application judge dismissed the jurisdictional challenge.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that section 113(5) of the Police Services Act grants the SIU jurisdiction to investigate alleged criminal offences committed by persons who were serving police officers at the time of the conduct, regardless of their current employment status.

The Court also held that the provision is procedural in nature and therefore applies retrospectively to offences committed before 1990.

The appellant, a detective constable, appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination after leaving his loaded service firearm unsecured on his desk.

He argued that he did not receive proper notice of the chief's complaint under the Police Services Act and sought to introduce new evidence regarding a past misconduct conviction of the main witness.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission denied the motion to introduce new evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, concluding that the hearing officer reasonably found that proper notice was given during the informal resolution process and that the evidence clearly supported the finding that the appellant failed to secure his firearm.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing several preliminary matters in a complex human rights proceeding.

The request to amend the style of cause to reflect legal name changes was granted.

The request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy was denied, as it would likely extend the cost and time of the proceeding.

The Hamilton Police Association's request to dismiss the complaints for failure to make out a prima facie case was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions regarding the request for dismissal on the basis of timeliness and ordered immediate compliance with disclosure obligations.