Donald F. McLeod

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed part of his human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a concurrent civil claim.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence because the failure of the civil claim would defeat the Code claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that section 34(11) is a mandatory jurisdictional bar and the Tribunal cannot consider the potential outcome of the civil litigation.

The Tribunal also declined the applicant's request to clarify that past procedural failures were the fault of his former counsel.

The accused was tried for multiple offences relating to the possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and Ketamine found in a vehicle he was driving.

The accused argued he had no knowledge of the contraband, and a passenger testified that the items belonged to him.

The court rejected the passenger's evidence as not credible and found that the accused, as the principal driver, had constructive possession of the items.

Alternatively, the court found the accused was wilfully blind to the presence of the firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The complainant alleged he was subjected to racial profiling during a traffic stop by the Ottawa Police Service.

The parties engaged in settlement negotiations resulting in two agreements.

The first agreement resolved individual and some public interest remedies, leaving the issue of race-based data collection outstanding.

The second agreement, between the Commission and the respondent, resolved the data collection issue, but the complainant did not sign it and sought to proceed to a hearing to obtain further orders enhancing the data collection project.

The respondent requested the Tribunal dispose of the complaint based on the settlements.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that it would order the additional remedies sought by the complainant, as they either contradicted the settlement, required amending the complaint, or involved methodological details best left to experts.

The complaint was disposed of in accordance with the settlement agreements.

The applicant, an Assistant Crown Attorney, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour regarding his arrest and strip search by Toronto Police Service officers, and later amended it to include reprisal allegations against the Toronto Police Association (TPA).

The applicant also commenced civil actions against the respondents based on the same facts.

The respondents brought requests to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code or to defer it pending the civil proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the TPA, finding that the civil claim for defamation incorporated a remedial claim for reprisal that was indistinguishable from the human rights application.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the TPS respondents under section 34(11) because the civil claim relied on the Charter rather than the Code, but deferred the application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding to avoid duplicative litigation.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application as an abuse of process for the applicant's failure to comply with directions.

The accused were arrested during a high-risk takedown following an undercover police operation targeting a ketamine drug transaction.

One accused was charged with trafficking and possession of marihuana, but the court found the Crown failed to prove his knowledge or involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals.

The other accused admitted to trafficking but brought a Charter application alleging police used excessive force during his arrest, including kicking him in the head while handcuffed.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that unknown officers subjected the accused to excessive and gratuitous force, breaching his s. 7 and s. 12 Charter rights.

Consequently, the charges against him were stayed pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from a bar altercation in which a bouncer was struck with a brick.

The appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, particularly because the trial judge rejected portions of eyewitness testimony and relied heavily on a brief surveillance video.

The appellate court reviewed the video evidence and the trial judge’s reasoning, including the finding that the footage established a chain of events leading from the blow to the victim immediately pinning the accused to the ground.

Applying the principles governing convictions based on video evidence, the court held the verdict was one that a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably reach.

The conviction was therefore upheld.

The accused sought review of a bail decision denying release on the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code following charges arising from an alleged armed home invasion and assault.

The reviewing judge considered whether the justice of the peace erred in law and whether continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Although the prosecution's case appeared strong and the offences were serious, the court held that the required “something more” justifying detention on the tertiary ground was absent.

Balancing the circumstances, including the accused’s lack of criminal record and a strengthened surety package, the court concluded that a properly informed member of the public would not view continued detention as necessary.

Bail was granted subject to strict house-arrest conditions and supervision by sureties.

Following a jury conviction for second-degree murder, the court determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

The offender participated in a planned ambush in which the victim was lured to a vacant apartment, forcibly confined, beaten, and shot multiple times.

The jury recommended the minimum ten-year period, while the Crown sought fifteen years.

Considering the offender’s criminal record, the firearm-related nature of the murder, the offender’s participation while on probation and under a weapons prohibition, and the possibility of rehabilitation, the court increased the parole ineligibility period to twelve years.

The accused brought a motion requesting a judicial inquiry into jury deliberations following a conviction for second-degree murder.

The motion relied on an affidavit from a juror alleging coercion and improper comments during deliberations.

The court held that after a verdict is received and the jury discharged, the trial judge is generally functus officio and lacks authority to revisit the verdict, subject to limited exceptions such as errors in recording the verdict.

Applying the jury secrecy rule under s. 649 of the Criminal Code and the principles articulated in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court concluded that the allegations related to intrinsic aspects of jury deliberations rather than extrinsic information capable of impeaching the verdict.

As the affidavit did not demonstrate the introduction of extrinsic evidence, the court declined to conduct an inquiry and held that any challenge to the verdict must proceed on appeal.

The union filed a policy grievance on behalf of two groups of correctional officers, alleging the employer failed to provide a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.

The workplace became poisoned due to anonymous racist and threatening hate mail, leading to severe racial divisions and a breakdown of trust among staff.

The employer admitted liability for negligence in its handling of the situation between 2005 and 2008.

The arbitrator found that while the employer did not write the letters, its response was inadequate and failed to sufficiently address the systemic issues until 2008.

The arbitrator awarded $1,500 to each affected employee in Group A and $1,000 to each affected employee in Group B for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a follow-up decision regarding the implementation of systemic remedies at the Toronto Jail.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the progress of various action plans, including the issuance of Standing Orders, peer coaching, dress code enforcement, staffing analysis, performance development plans, and workplace discrimination and harassment training.

Several objectives were deemed accomplished, while others remain subject to ongoing monitoring and future meetings between the union and the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board conducted a review of the implementation of its previous remedial orders aimed at restoring a workplace free from harassment and discrimination at the Toronto Jail.

The Board noted progress on several fronts, including the issuance of Standing Orders, management training, and the installation of security equipment.

The Board varied certain orders, establishing new deadlines for performance development plans, diversity training, and the implementation of the new Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) policy.

The Board also clarified the role of the seconded Deputy-Superintendent in overseeing the restoration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an update on the parties' organizational objectives and the implementation of agreed action plans at the Toronto Jail.

The decision outlines specific timelines and responsibilities for the Employer and the Union to complete various training initiatives, including anti-racism, conflict resolution, and human rights training, as well as policy updates regarding standing orders, dress codes, and workplace discrimination and harassment complaints.

The grievor requested an assignment to the position of Senior Records Clerk at the Toronto Jail pursuant to Article 8.6.3 of the Collective Agreement.

The employer denied the request, leading to a grievance.

Following a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board directed that the grievor be assigned to the position on a permanent basis.

The Grievance Settlement Board established a hearing protocol for several grievances alleging harm and damages from a poisoned work environment.

The protocol sets out hearing dates for Group A and Group B grievances, limits the number of individuals the Union may have present, and establishes timelines for the exchange of will-say statements and proposed monetary resolutions.

In a mediation-arbitration process concerning grievances over a poisoned work environment, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision for the remaining unresolved individual grievances.

Pursuant to the collective agreement, the Board imposed limitations on evidence and set conditions for the arbitration.

To avoid lengthy litigation, the Employer accepted liability for negligence solely for the purpose of these cases.

The Board established a timeline for the exchange of updated will-say statements and written particulars of remedies sought, and directed that no oral evidence would be heard unless directed by the Vice-Chair.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an update to its previous decisions regarding objectives and action plans to improve the work environment at the Toronto Jail.

The Board amended several objectives, including the process for the Coordinating Committee to address unresolved issues of racism, sexism, or sexual orientation, and directed the Ministry to provide written proposals regarding paid parking and managerial appointments.

The Board also updated the responsibilities for certain action plans and appointed new members to the Coordinating Committee.

The union sought interim relief to maintain a correctional officer's paid leave of absence pending the determination of his grievance regarding a poisoned work environment.

The grievor had been on paid leave for 17 months after receiving racially-motivated hate mail.

The employer offered to accommodate the grievor at six other correctional institutions, but the grievor refused, seeking to remain on paid leave.

The Board assumed jurisdiction to grant interim relief but dismissed the application, finding that the employer's offer of alternative work locations was a reasonable accommodation and the balance of harm did not favour allowing the grievor to remain off work with pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplementary decision to update its previous decisions regarding systemic issues at the Toronto Jail.

The Board amended action plans and objectives, including scheduling Coordinating Committee meetings, clarifying staff rights to report wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, and addressing racism and discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Vice-Chair remained seized with respect to the interpretation or implementation of the decision.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge applied unequal scrutiny to the evidence, made unreasonable findings regarding a nurse and toxicologist, and failed to consider the complainant's motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge provided lengthy, careful reasons and made reasonable findings.

The Court declined the invitation to reweigh the evidence.