Jason Fraser

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 19-storey mixed-use building with retail, office space, and 150 apartment units.

The City argued the site should be retained for a potential future major office and that the proposed height was incompatible with the historic downtown.

The Tribunal found that the mixed-use proposal satisfied legislative requirements and provided needed housing and office space.

However, the Tribunal reduced the maximum height to 16 storeys to better transition to the historic core and imposed a Holding provision until sanitary sewer capacity issues are addressed.

The appeals were allowed in part.

This decision addresses an application by the York Regional Police (YRP) for standing to make submissions in a disclosure classification hearing.

The defence sought police policy documents, and the core issue was whether these were first-party (Crown's automatic disclosure) or third-party (O'Connor regime) records.

The YRP, supported by the Crown, argued for standing, while the defence objected.

The court granted YRP standing, emphasizing that police forces have a direct interest in disclosure issues concerning their own records and that substance should prevail over form, especially when the Crown's position aligns with the police.

The defendant, Giuseppe Galati, facing a dangerous driving charge, brought an application for disclosure of the York Regional Police's (YRP) Suspect Apprehension Pursuit (SAP) policies and procedures.

The Crown and YRP opposed the request, arguing it was a speculative fishing expedition.

The court, applying the 'obviously relevant' test from R. v. Gubbins, found that the SAP policy was relevant to the credibility of the central Crown witness (PC Skelly) and the defence's ability to make full answer and defence.

The court ordered the YRP to disclose the SAP policy created pursuant to O. Reg. 266/10, but declined to order a broader disclosure of all pursuit-related policies as overly vague.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct for carelessly causing damage to his police vehicle during a left-turn collision, and the subsequent penalty of forfeiting 16 hours.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct finding, concluding that the officer failed to ensure he could complete his turn safely.

However, the Commission allowed the penalty appeal, finding the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating the officer's failure to acknowledge guilt and the absence of Highway Traffic Act consequences as aggravating factors.

The penalty was reduced to the jointly submitted forfeiture of 8 hours.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt and a penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer for discreditable conduct, deceit, and insubordination arising from an unlawful and intrusive search of a female detainee.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in credibility assessments, was biased, improperly denied an adjournment, and imposed an unfit penalty.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the credibility findings, no evidence of bias, and that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct, which also resulted in a criminal conviction for sexual assault.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's penalty requiring her to resign or face termination.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting 15 fraudulent massage therapy benefits claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OCPC reasonably applied the standard of review, properly deferred to the Hearing Officer's weighing of the Krug factors and usefulness test, and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision requiring her to resign or face termination after she pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting fraudulent health benefit claims.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh, excessive, and inconsistent with similar cases where officers were demoted rather than dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the usefulness test, the officer's short tenure, and the severity of the repetitive fraud.

A dissenting member would have substituted a penalty of demotion based on consistency with prior disciplinary cases.

The appellant, a police officer with 26 years of service, appealed a disciplinary hearing decision finding him guilty of insubordination and imposing a penalty of 8 hours forfeiture of pay.

The officer had been ordered by his supervisor via text message to remain at his desk during his shift because he was working alone, but he disobeyed the order and went out on surveillance.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions on guilt, credibility, and penalty were reasonable and supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The moving party, a police officer found guilty of misconduct and ordered dismissed, brought a motion to extend the time to perfect his disciplinary appeal to the Commission until the conclusion of parallel criminal proceedings arising from the same incident.

The officer had been convicted of sexual assault but had not yet been sentenced and intended to appeal.

The Commission granted the motion on consent, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's direction in Toronto v. C.U.P.E. Local 79 that lower tribunals should await the outcome of criminal proceedings dealing with the same facts to avoid collateral attacks and inconsistent verdicts.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of dismissal arising from a 2004 traffic stop and drug seizure.

The Hearing Officer had found the Appellant guilty of neglect of duty based largely on hearsay utterances from a disgraced former officer and circumstantial evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer committed numerous errors of law, including admitting highly unreliable and prejudicial hearsay evidence, shifting the burden of proof onto the Appellant, making irreconcilable findings of fact, and improperly using his own police experience to fill gaps in the evidentiary record.

The finding of misconduct was quashed, rendering the penalty moot.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of misconduct arising from an unprovoked assault on a handcuffed prisoner accompanied by discriminatory comments.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in principle by disregarding positive character evidence and failing to properly apply the usefulness test.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant factors, including mitigating ones, and reasonably concluded that the egregious nature of the misconduct and the bias demonstrated rendered the officer no longer useful to the police service.

The appellant appealed her youth court sentence.

The Crown acknowledged that, regardless of whether the original disposition was fit, the appellant had made remarkable progress in turning her life around, as evidenced by a post-sentence report.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, varying the custodial portion of the sentence to time served and setting aside the probation order.