David Migicovsky

Following a successful appeal, the appellant police service sought costs of over $90,000.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellant $20,000 for the costs of the underlying application.

However, the court found the requested appeal costs unreasonable, noting the appeal involved novel issues that the appellant had an institutional interest in resolving.

The court fixed the appeal costs at $25,000, payable by the respondent.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The respondent, whose criminal charges for sexual offences were withdrawn upon entering a peace bond, applied for jobs requiring a Vulnerable Persons Search.

He signed consent forms authorizing the Toronto Police Service to conduct the search.

The Peel Police Service disclosed the withdrawn charges to the Toronto Police Service.

The respondent obtained an injunction prohibiting the Peel Police Service from disclosing the withdrawn charges.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the disclosure was authorized by the respondent's consent under s. 32(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court also dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, finding no violation of his Charter rights under ss. 7 and 8.

The parties settled the matter on consent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal without costs.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the retention and disclosure of police records by the Peel Regional Police Service.

The proposed intervener sought to raise new Charter issues regarding the police service's policies and practices.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the proposed intervener had relevant expertise, permitting the intervention would unfairly change the focus and scope of the proceedings, require a new evidentiary record, and prejudice the respondent given the proximity to the hearing date.

The applicant police services board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award that allowed a grievance by a police officer who was denied selection for a canine officer training course.

The arbitrator found the applicant violated the collective agreement by not giving the officer an opportunity to respond to performance concerns before making the decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and set aside the award, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was unreasonable.

The Court found no requirement in the agreement to engage the officer in the selection process in that manner, and noted the arbitrator failed to address the core issue of whether the applicant's decision was made with just cause.

The respondents brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

The Commission had directed the applicant Chief of Police to initiate a disciplinary hearing against a police constable for alleged neglect of duty during a sudden death investigation.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application for judicial review was premature as the Commission's decision merely required a hearing and was not a final determination of rights.

The court emphasized the need to avoid fragmenting administrative proceedings.

The appellant union appealed a trial judgment holding it liable for the balance of a deficit in a jointly funded dental plan administered by Great-West Life.

The union argued that Canada Post failed to remit proper premiums and that the governing agreement had been terminated, precluding liability for run-off claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the union shared responsibility for the deficit and that the agreement had not been legally terminated.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services refusing to consent to the abolition of the municipal police force unless the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) agreed to binding arbitration regarding the hiring of a specific officer.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Commission's jurisdiction under section 40(3) of the Police Services Act is limited to ordering arbitration between a police board and a member regarding severance pay.

The Commission had no statutory authority to order the OPP to submit to arbitration regarding an officer's suitability for employment.

The condition was set aside and the Commission was directed to consent to the termination.

Following the creation of the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board from parts of four predecessor English-language school boards, multiple unions applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act to determine the appropriate bargaining units.

The Board held that a bargaining unit for maintenance workers based on a 'family of schools' was not appropriate, given the statutory assignment of maintenance functions to the full board and the deemed intermingling provisions of Bill 109.

The Board declined to preserve the historical bargaining rights on a geographic basis and confirmed the results of representation votes for office and clerical employees, cafeteria employees, and bus drivers.

During a hearing for a construction industry grievance referred under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, a dispute arose regarding the scope of a summons to witness issued at the applicant's request.

The applicant sought the production of documents relating to job sites not mentioned in the grievance and for periods extending beyond the grievance date.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the summons must be restricted to documents relating only to the two job sites specifically named in the grievance, and limited the relevant timeframe to the period between March 19, 1984, and the first day of the hearing.