Ian Johnstone

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data, soil classifications, and topographical features to determine the current value.

The Board found that valuation based on tillable acreage was most appropriate and applied a time adjustment factor to comparable sales.

The 2017 assessment was reduced from $1,709,000 to $1,576,000, while the 2018 assessment was confirmed at $1,545,000 as the respondent did not seek an increase.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act charges against the respondent officers.

The respondent officers brought a motion to dismiss the request for leave to appeal, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the proposed appellant failed to serve the Solicitor General and the Independent Police Review Director within the 30-day statutory period.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that under section 87 of the Police Services Act and the Commission's rules, service on statutory interveners is not required until after leave to appeal has been granted.

A sentencing appeal concerning whether a justice of the peace has jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil and hold a sole shareholder and directing mind personally liable for corporate fines.

The defendant corporation pleaded guilty to three charges under the Electricity Act arising from unsafe electrical work that resulted in a death.

The trial judge imposed fines of $430,000 but declined to pierce the corporate veil, finding she lacked jurisdiction.

The Crown appealed, arguing the defendant had improperly transferred corporate assets to himself and a new corporation to shield them from liability.

The appellate court found that justices of the peace do possess implied jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil in appropriate circumstances and that the test was satisfied on these facts.

The appellant police officer was demoted for two years following a guilty plea to Discreditable Conduct.

Before the two-year period ended, he was suspended for allegedly reporting for duty with alcohol in his system.

The respondent police service refused to reinstate him to his former rank, treating the suspension as interrupting the demotion period.

The appellant appealed, arguing the refusal to reinstate was discipline imposed without a hearing.

The Commission directed the Chief of Police to hold a hearing under Part V of the Police Services Act to determine whether the appellant failed to meet the conditions for reinstatement, and dismissed the appeal without prejudice to the appellant's right to appeal the future hearing officer's decision.

The respondent police service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant officer's appeal as untimely under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant had been demoted with conditional reinstatement, but was not reinstated following a subsequent suspension.

After an arbitrator ruled the dispute was disciplinary and not arbitrable, the appellant appealed to the Commission.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the 30-day time limit in section 87(1) did not apply because no hearing had taken place.

The Commission further held it had jurisdiction under section 78(1) because the complaints process was not completed given the conditional nature of the original penalty.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and family status against multiple police services, a children's aid society, and the Family Responsibility Office.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal found that the three timely allegations—concerning police responses to child access disputes, child support enforcement policies, and a children's aid society's decision not to investigate a report—had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence of adverse treatment linked to a protected ground.

The Tribunal further dismissed the remaining untimely allegations, some dating back nine years, finding the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination, discreditable conduct, and deceit, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from the appellant's failure to assist two members of the public with criminal record checks outside regular business hours, contrary to orders, and his subsequent deceit to a supervisor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the findings of misconduct, finding the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments reasonable.

However, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the appellant twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and failing to apply the Kienapple principle.

The penalty was varied from an 18-month demotion to a forfeiture of 40 hours.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) decision that ordered a new discipline hearing.

The OCPC had found that the Hearing Officer breached procedural fairness by failing to provide minimum assistance to the unrepresented public complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the OCPC's refusal to admit fresh affidavit evidence about off-the-record events.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the complainant needed to prove actual prejudice, affirming that a breach of procedural fairness carries inherent prejudice and denies a meaningful role in the proceeding.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a parallel proceeding under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the statutory privilege and confidentiality provisions of the PSA make documents generated during the complaint process inadmissible in another proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to properly name the organizational respondent, add grounds of colour and sex, and add remedies, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also ordered that the hearing be bifurcated between liability and remedy stages.

The Chief of Police pled guilty to discreditable conduct after cancelling two Provincial Offence Notices issued to a city councillor for running a red light and failing to produce valid insurance.

The Chief cancelled the tickets without consulting the issuing officer or following proper procedures.

The Commission determined that the conduct undermined the rule of law and the fair administration of justice.

Balancing the Chief's exemplary employment record against the need for general deterrence, the Commission ordered a penalty of forfeiture of 5 days of work or 40 hours of pay.

The appellant in a police discipline appeal brought a motion to introduce an affidavit alleging prosecutorial incompetence and breaches of natural justice during the hearing.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the affidavit did not qualify as fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

Applying the Keeprite test, the Commission held that affidavit evidence to supplement the record is only admissible in rare circumstances where the alleged breach cannot be proven by reference to the record.

Because the appellant's allegations could be ascertained from the hearing transcripts, the affidavit was inadmissible.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination by her employer regarding her alcohol addiction.

The respondent employer requested that the applicant's union, the Durham Regional Police Association, be added as a respondent.

The applicant and the union opposed this request.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the union as a respondent, finding no allegations of Code violations against the union and noting the applicant's opposition.

However, the Tribunal granted the union's request for intervenor status, recognizing its interest in the accommodation issues raised.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of Chief John Gauthier of the Timmins Police Service.

The investigation concerned the Chief's decision to cancel Provincial Offence Notices issued to a city councillor for a red light infraction and failing to produce valid insurance.

Chief Gauthier pled guilty to the amended allegation of acting in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Service.

The Commission accepted the guilty plea, found him guilty of discreditable conduct, and adjourned the matter to hear evidence and submissions regarding penalty.

Chief Gauthier, charged with discreditable conduct for allegedly withdrawing traffic tickets issued to a city councillor, brought a motion for further disclosure and particulars from the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the administrative law standard for disclosure had been met.

The Notice of Hearing, combined with the 48-page investigative report and extensive evidentiary disclosure, provided sufficient particulars for the Chief to know the case he had to meet.

The Commission is not required to provide its legal strategy, research, or point to the exact pieces of evidence it intends to rely upon at the hearing.

The appellant police officer was suspended with pay and ordered by the Chief of Police to disclose his income and hours worked from secondary employment.

The officer refused, arguing that because his secondary employment commenced prior to his suspension, he was exempt from reporting under section 89(8) of the Police Services Act.

He was convicted of insubordination at a disciplinary hearing.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding that section 89(8) does not excuse an officer from complying with a lawful order of the Chief to disclose secondary employment information, which the Chief is entitled to request to ensure the officer is not engaged in full-time employment for another person.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that dismissed charges of neglect of duty against two police officers.

The officers had investigated a fatal motor vehicle collision involving a pedestrian and declined to demand an approved screening device (ASD) sample from the driver, despite the driver's admission to consuming one or two beers earlier in the evening.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that the officers did not have a reasonable suspicion that the driver had alcohol in his body at the time of the accident, as there were no physical indicia of alcohol consumption or impairment.

The Commission concluded that the officers reasonably exercised their discretion under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code and dismissed the appeal.

The respondents requested an order to consolidate two human rights applications filed by the applicant and to remove the Corporation of the Town of Shelburne as a respondent.

The applicant consented to the removal of the Town of Shelburne but opposed consolidation, arguing the applications involved separate issues.

The Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and found that the applications involved the same parties, overlapping allegations regarding failure to accommodate, and formed a factual continuum.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the Town of Shelburne and granted the consolidation of the applications to avoid unnecessary duplication.

The applicant, a former employee of the Ontario Public Service, brought a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested the production of various documents to support his theory that the respondents' post-settlement actions were tainted with discrimination and an intent to enact a reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents met the low threshold of arguable relevance, as they could shed light on the respondents' alleged attitude toward the applicant and the reasons for disbanding his division.

The request for production was granted.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted of impaired driving while off duty.

A joint submission proposed a forfeiture of 100 hours, but the Hearing Officer rejected it and imposed a 15-month demotion.

On appeal, the Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias in the Hearing Officer's decision to reject the joint submission or his reference to public opinion.

However, the Commission found the 15-month demotion was harsh and excessive, as the Hearing Officer failed to distinguish the appellant's circumstances from more serious cases and placed too much weight on general deterrence.

The penalty was varied to a 9-month demotion.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Police Governing Authority granting an extension of time to serve a Notice of Hearing for disciplinary action.

The applicant was not given notice of the request for an extension and had no opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that this failure breached minimal requirements of procedural fairness, rendering the decision fundamentally flawed and justifying intervention despite the interlocutory nature of the ruling.

The court quashed the decision and ordered the applicant's salary to be paid for the period of his suspension.