George Monteith

The appellant, a police officer, appealed findings of guilt on seven counts of misconduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved unauthorized use of the CPIC system for personal reasons to track his former common-law spouse, failing to report her breach of bail conditions, and improperly using his position to obtain an occurrence report.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding they were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty, finding that dismissal was appropriate given the officer's disciplinary history and the serious, repeated abuse of the CPIC system.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed findings of guilt on seven counts of misconduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved unauthorized use of the CPIC and MANIX systems for personal reasons related to his former common-law spouse, failing to report her breach of bail conditions, and improperly using his position to obtain an occurrence report.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite some inaudible passages in the hearing transcripts, there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of guilt.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's prior disciplinary record, the seriousness of misusing police databases, and the need for deterrence.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on seven counts of misconduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct charges stemmed from his unauthorized use of the CPIC system to conduct numerous inquiries on his former common-law spouse and her new partner, as well as failing to report her breach of bail conditions and improperly using his position to obtain an occurrence report.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's prior disciplinary record and the serious nature of using CPIC for personal reasons.

The appellant, a senior police officer, appealed a conviction and reprimand for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant allegedly failed to investigate information provided by the widow of a murdered officer, who claimed that two officers were improperly absent from their duties on the night of the murder.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision to prefer the widow's evidence over the appellant's was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal against both the conviction and the penalty was dismissed.

The appellant, a police superintendent, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and the resulting penalty of a reprimand.

The charge arose from allegations that he failed to initiate an investigation after being informed by the widow of a murdered officer that two other officers were improperly absent from duty on the night of the murder.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision, which relied on the widow's testimony over the appellant's, was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal against both the conviction and the penalty was dismissed.

Following the amalgamation of seven municipalities into the new City of Toronto, the Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to determine the appropriate bargaining unit structures under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board eliminated a small craft unit of operating engineers at a landfill site, integrating them into the broader outside workers unit.

The Board rejected proposals to create a separate health department bargaining unit and a separate nurses' unit within the health department, finding that these employees were appropriately situated within the larger municipal inside workers unit.

However, the Board preserved the separate stand-alone bargaining unit for employees of the Toronto Parking Authority, noting its status as a distinct local board and successor employer under the legislation.

The applicant union sought interim relief under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, challenging the Toronto Parking Authority's recruitment of employees currently employed by the City of Toronto.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to consider the application, as the issues arose from the negotiation process contemplated by the Act.

Although the application did not strictly comply with the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board granted relief against strict compliance.

The Board also found that the responding parties' conduct did not appear inconsistent with the Act, but left the final determination of interim relief for a reconvened consultation.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for deceit and insubordination, and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of two days off.

The deceit charge arose from false notebook entries concealing a visit to a chiropractor while on duty.

The insubordination charge arose from the officer's failure to submit a written report regarding equipment found in his locker while he was suspended.

The Commission upheld both convictions, finding the notebook entries were inaccurate and misleading, and that a suspended officer remains obligated to comply with lawful orders from superiors.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty confirmed.

At the conclusion of evidence in a human rights complaint, an issue arose regarding the admissibility of certain non-government documents tendered by the complainant.

The respondent objected, arguing the documents contained untested allegations by interest groups.

The adjudicator admitted the documents as a matter of discretion, finding them akin to materials already admitted and leaving the determination of their weight for later submissions.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to adjourn the proceedings pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Egan, to dismiss the complaints as moot, and to challenge the Board's jurisdiction to consider Charter issues.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motions.

The Board held that the hearing on the merits would proceed, but argument would be adjourned pending the Egan decision.

The Board found the complaints were not moot because the current provision of same-sex benefits was based on interim policy rather than legal obligation.

The Board also granted an amendment to broaden the scope of the Dwyer complaint and affirmed its jurisdiction to consider Charter issues in relation to the Human Rights Code.

The appellant, a street flower vendor, was charged with exposing goods for sale without a licence contrary to a municipal by-law and with obstructing a peace officer after refusing to obey an order to move.

The by-law scheme permitted only owners or occupants of abutting property to apply for a sidewalk use licence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the enabling provincial legislation did not authorize the municipality to discriminate between free-standing street vendors and owner/occupant vendors, rendering the by-law ultra vires.

Consequently, the conviction for obstructing a peace officer was also set aside, as the officer had no authority to arrest the appellant for failing to comply with an order enforcing an invalid by-law.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct after having sexual intercourse with a civilian in their patrol car while on duty.

They argued the matter should have been handled as a public complaint, which would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and challenged the admissibility of electronically intercepted conversations under Section 8 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding the complaint was not a public complaint, the Charter arguments failed, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severe breach of public trust.

The appellant, a police constable, sought an extension of time to serve a Notice of Appeal regarding his dismissal from the police force following a criminal conviction for assault.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that under Section 24 of Regulation 791, the maximum period within which a Notice of Appeal may be served is 45 days, and therefore it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time.

In the alternative, the Commission found that the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit to justify an extension of time, and dismissed the application.

The appellant, a police constable, was convicted of a disciplinary offence for refusing a lawful order to patrol outside the Morgentaler Clinic, citing his religious beliefs against abortion.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the order to keep the peace did not violate his Charter rights or constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code, as a constable's duty to preserve the peace must be performed impartially regardless of personal conscience.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, reducing it to a demotion in rank, noting the appellant's good service record and his undertaking to obey lawful orders in the future.

The respondents in several certification applications brought a motion to postpone the Board's hearing of a Charter challenge to section 12 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued the hearing should be adjourned pending the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Cuddy Chicks, which would determine the Board's jurisdiction to hear Charter issues.

The Board denied the requested postponement, emphasizing the importance of expedition in labour relations matters and noting that the current state of the law recognized the Board as a court of competent jurisdiction capable of applying the Charter.