Ian Johnstone

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following the settlement of an earlier complaint.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed on various grounds, including that parts were covered by the prior settlement, lacked particulars, or were out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the delay in appointment and the failure to implement settlement terms regarding selection panels.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations concerning the restructuring of the applicant's department, underresourcing, and his subsequent termination to proceed, finding they constituted a series of incidents not barred by delay.

Most personal respondents were removed, except for one against whom specific allegations of reprisal were made.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against four police officers for failing to make an approved screening device (ASD) demand following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Hearing Officer had ruled that the driver's admission of alcohol consumption was a legally compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act and could not be used to form reasonable suspicion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found this ruling unreasonable, as there was no evidence the driver subjectively believed he was legally compelled to report the accident.

The Commission revoked the dismissal for the two first-responding officers and remitted the matter for continuation, but confirmed the dismissal for the two later-arriving officers who could not have made a demand 'forthwith'.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved forcing entry into a neighbour's home while intoxicated to confront his son, and subsequently actively resisting arrest by fellow officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's decision reasonable given the appellant's history of progressive discipline for alcohol-related misconduct, failure to rehabilitate despite multiple opportunities, and the serious damage to the reputation of the police service.