Deepa Negandhi

The moving party brought a motion to add the Independent Police Review Director, the Toronto Police Service, and several constables as respondents in his application for judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The constables opposed only the addition of the Director.

The court found that the Director was already imperfectly named as a respondent in the body of the notice of application and could be added to the heading without leave.

Alternatively, the court held that the Director ought to have been named as a respondent because he had a statutory right to be heard on the appeal before the Commission and his unique oversight role under the Police Services Act made his presence necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues.

The motion was granted.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder after a housekeeper was strangled to death during a break and enter.

At trial, each accused blamed the other for the killing.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge erred in his instructions regarding party liability, the use of lies to police, and the evidence of a co-accused's ex-wife.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no errors in the jury instructions on common purpose liability or post-offence conduct, and concluding that the Crown's cross-examination did not render the trial unfair.