David S. Thompson

The moving party sought an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from an order denying her individual party status in a class action settlement.

The respondents argued that the appeal lacked merit based on previous case law.

The court found a reasonable explanation for the delay and concluded that the issue of standing should be decided by a full panel.

The motion to extend time was granted.

The Maitland Valley Conservation Authority and the Attorney General for Ontario sought leave to appeal a Provincial Court decision dismissing a prosecution against the respondents for constructing a building on a swamp without written permission.

The respondents had obtained a building permit from the municipality, and the Provincial Court judge found they could successfully assert the defence of officially induced error.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the legal effect of a building permit as a defence to prosecution under another Act raises a question of law of broad public significance.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalties imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct, as well as the withdrawal of other disciplinary charges.

The Commission held a preliminary hearing to determine the appellant's standing as a public complainant and its jurisdiction over withdrawn charges.

The Commission found that the appellant's statement to the OPP during a criminal investigation did not constitute a public complaint under Part V of the Police Services Act.

The appellant only had standing to appeal the penalty for one count arising from a later written complaint.

Furthermore, the Commission ruled it had no statutory authority to hear appeals regarding disciplinary charges that were withdrawn by the prosecutor, as no decision had been rendered on those charges.

The appellant brought an application under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act seeking leave to appeal decisions arising from disciplinary proceedings against a police constable.

The parties agreed that two preliminary matters needed to be determined before the leave to appeal application could proceed.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of discreditable conduct and corrupt practice arising from guilty pleas entered at a disciplinary hearing.

He sought to withdraw the pleas, arguing they were the result of undue pressure and incompetent representation by his agent, who admitted facts the appellant did not accept.

The Commission admitted the appellant's affidavit as new evidence to assess the validity of the hearing process.

Finding that the agent had admitted key facts without the appellant's agreement and that the Hearing Officer would not have accepted the pleas had this been known, the Commission concluded the appellant was inadequately represented.

The appeal was allowed and the matters remitted for a new trial.