Harry G. Black

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for allegedly using unnecessary force during the G20 summit.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the Notice of Hearing served on the officer differed from the draft notice approved by the Police Services Board in a delay application under section 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's role under section 83(17) is limited to determining whether the delay in serving the notice was reasonable, not approving the specific wording of the charge.

The Commission revoked the stay and remitted the matter for a re-hearing.

The Applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board, which declined to extend the time for service of a Notice of Disciplinary Hearing on two police officers beyond the six-month period under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached procedural fairness by not providing the Applicants with the officers' submissions or an opportunity to respond.

The Court also found the Board's decision unreasonable for failing to consider the causes of delay holistically.

The Board's decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

The Appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to deliver a Notice of Appeal regarding a police discipline matter.

The Respondent officer argued the appeal was out of time under the Commission's Rules.

The Commission found that the Appellant had formed an intention to appeal within the relevant time period and that the justice of the case required an extension.

The motion was granted, allowing the Notice of Appeal to be filed nunc pro tunc.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by appearing to reverse the burden of proof, requiring the officer to prove he had reasonable and probable grounds.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to adequately analyze the officer's subjective belief and whether there was good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

Given the excessive delay of over five years, the Commission revoked the finding of misconduct rather than remitting the matter for a new hearing.

The Toronto Police Service and a police officer sought access to youth records of a young person (L.D.) who was a witness and complainant in a police disciplinary hearing.

The officer was alleged to have assaulted L.D. while in police custody.

The court considered whether access to L.D.'s youth records was permitted under sections 119(1)(s) and 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a valid or valid and substantial interest in the records, and that permitting access would undermine the proper administration of justice under both the YCJA and the Police Services Act.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, an O.P.P. sergeant, was tried on charges of breach of trust and attempting to obstruct justice arising from allegedly false entries on traffic notice and summons documents for speeding offences.

The Crown relied on inconsistencies between the officer notes and laser-device data, as well as an interview said to contain admissions.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court found the accused's evidence was not fully believable but also could not be rejected, particularly given supporting circumstances including the laser-use log, recovered notes, and significant confusion and misleading statements during the police interview.

Considering the evidence as a whole, the court was left with a reasonable doubt about whether the accused had the requisite intent to falsify the documents.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

Constable Mulholland appealed the penalty imposed by a Hearing Officer for multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, insubordination, discreditable conduct, and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a demotion with conditions, which the appellant argued was harsh and excessive given his diagnoses of PTSD and substance abuse.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the penalty factors, including the seriousness of the multiple acts of misconduct and the mitigating medical evidence, and that the penalty did not violate the duty to accommodate.

The Crown brought a pre‑trial application seeking admission of a photograph allegedly depicting a police officer assaulting a protester during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The image had been anonymously uploaded to a website and lacked metadata, raising concerns about provenance and possible manipulation.

Competing expert evidence addressed whether the photograph had been altered, but neither expert could confirm its authenticity or trace its origin.

Applying the established criteria for authenticating photographic evidence, the court held the Crown failed to establish fairness and absence of manipulation.

As a result, the photograph was not authenticated and was ruled inadmissible at trial.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add several allegations of discrimination and reprisal against the respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, allowing the applicant to add allegations of harassment and reprisal that occurred within one year of the application and were related to the original complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request to add older allegations relating to a previous supervisor, finding them out of time and distinct from the original application, with no good faith explanation for the delay.

The appellant police officer sought to introduce new medical evidence and internal correspondence regarding his post-disposition work performance on his appeal of a disciplinary demotion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and dismissed the motion.

The Commission found that the medical evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the penalty hearing, and that post-disposition work performance was not relevant where the penalty imposed was demotion rather than dismissal.

The Crown brought a motion seeking to limit defence cross‑examination of a non‑accused witness regarding prior discreditable conduct and the underlying facts of home invasion charges for which the witness had been acquitted.

The defence opposed the limitation and sought an order preventing the witness from referring to the acquittal.

The court reviewed the broad right of an accused to cross‑examine ordinary witnesses as part of the right to make full answer and defence.

Distinguishing authorities dealing with cross‑examination of an accused, the court held that limitations applicable to accused persons do not apply to ordinary witnesses.

Balancing probative value against potential prejudice, the court permitted cross‑examination on the underlying facts of the acquitted charges and declined to prohibit the witness from mentioning the acquittal if it arose naturally.

The Crown sought to qualify an oral maxillofacial surgeon to provide expert opinion evidence on the diagnosis, mechanism, causation, direction of force, and magnitude of force of the complainant's jaw fractures in an aggravated assault trial.

Following a voir dire, the court qualified the doctor to opine on the diagnosis and mechanism of the injuries based on his extensive clinical experience.

However, applying the Mohan and Abbey frameworks, the court held the doctor was not properly qualified to opine on causation, direction, or magnitude of force, as he lacked specialized training, research, or prior qualification in those specific forensic areas.

During a criminal proceeding, the defence sought to qualify a forensic odontologist as an expert on the diagnosis, causation, and assessment of oral maxillofacial trauma.

The court applied the admissibility framework for expert evidence and concluded the proposed expert possessed sufficient expertise to testify about diagnosis of mandible injuries and the mechanism and pattern of jaw fractures.

However, the court found the expert lacked specialized education, research, and practical experience regarding causation, direction of force, or magnitude of force relating to jaw fractures.

Applying the gatekeeping function for expert evidence, the court also held that permitting opinions on causation would risk intruding on the ultimate issue for the jury and could improperly influence fact‑finding.

The expert was therefore limited to opinion evidence concerning diagnosis and injury patterns.

The applicant sought to re-litigate an abuse of process stay application after the original judge, who had dismissed the application but not yet provided reasons, was elevated to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant argued that only the trial judge has jurisdiction to hear a stay application.

The court held that a judge other than the trial judge has jurisdiction to hear a stay application under s. 24(1) of the Charter and Rule 27 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The court also found that it had jurisdiction to continue the proceedings under s. 669.2(1) of the Criminal Code and that it was not in the interests of justice to re-litigate the identical application on the same record.

The motion was dismissed.

A police constable was charged with assault with a weapon arising from his use of a police asp during the arrest of a protester at the G-20 demonstrations in Toronto on June 26, 2010.

The Crown alleged that the force used exceeded what was necessary.

The defendant testified that he used the asp to assist fellow officers in securing the arrestee's limbs.

The court found that the defendant's use of force was not proportionate, necessary, or reasonable, and that his explanation for the blows was an after-the-fact justification rather than the actual reason for them.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused, an off-duty Peel Regional Police officer, was charged with possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Crown alleged the accused knowingly possessed crack cocaine and powder cocaine found in his briefcase.

The accused testified that he had lawfully seized the drugs during a residential raid conducted in his capacity as a police officer, inadvertently failed to submit them at shift end, and subsequently retained them with the intent to submit them for lawful destruction.

The central legal issue was whether the accused's possession fell within the regulatory protection afforded to police officers under the Narcotic Control Regulations.

The accused brought a motion to amend his Charter Notice to add relief pursuant to sections 9 and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms after the Crown had closed its case at trial.

The motion was brought on the basis of simple oversight by defence counsel.

The court denied the application, finding that while the accused has a right to make full answer and defence, the late timing of the application, the prejudice to the Crown, the impact on judicial resources, and the availability of alternative remedies through section 24(2) analysis of the properly served section 8 claim warranted denial of the motion.

The accused, a Toronto police officer, was charged with criminal harassment and assault on the basis of a private complaint laid in December 2010.

The accused brought an application to stay the charges pursuant to s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the grounds of unreasonable delay.

The Crown's office had delayed assigning an outside Crown to the case due to a conflict of interest, and the complainant had refused to provide disclosure until after her own trial was completed.

The total delay from the laying of the information to the scheduled trial date was approximately 35 months, with the court attributing 23 months of that delay to the state.

The court found that the delay was unreasonable and stayed the charges.

Five police officers were convicted of attempting to obstruct justice, and three of them were also convicted of perjury, arising from a warrantless search of a drug suspect's apartment and subsequent false memo book entries and testimony to conceal the timing of the search.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences of three to four years, while the defence sought non-custodial sentences.

The court considered the serious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and deterrence, but also weighed significant mitigating factors, including the catastrophic impact of the prolonged 14-year investigation and proceedings on the officers' lives, careers, and health.

The court concluded that a penitentiary term was not warranted and imposed a 45-day conditional sentence (house arrest) for each offender.

The Independent Police Review Director brought a motion to quash a summons to witness issued to an investigator and for a declaration that counsel to the OIPRD was not required to bring the investigative file to her cross-examination.

The underlying application for judicial review sought to defer interviews of two police officers facing criminal charges until after their criminal trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the evidence sought from the investigator and the investigative file was not relevant or necessary for the judicial review application, as it exceeded the narrow focus of the proceeding.