2 total
Judicial review dismissed; no procedural fairness breach in withholding subject officer's statement during OIPRD investigation.
The applicant sought judicial review of an OIPRD decision affirming the Toronto Chief of Police's conclusion that his assault complaint against an officer was unsubstantiated.
The applicant argued the OIPRD breached procedural fairness by refusing to disclose the subject officer's statement before the applicant provided his own.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no statutory obligation to disclose the officer's statement to the complainant at the investigative stage, and held that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable.
Police occurrence reports about complainant are first‑party disclosure under Stinchcombe.
The accused brought an application seeking production of police occurrence reports and related records concerning the complainant during the period covered by the indictment for multiple assault-related offences.
The defence argued the records could demonstrate that the complainant’s alleged injuries were caused by someone else and were relevant to credibility.
The court considered whether the records were governed by first-party disclosure under Stinchcombe or the third-party records regime under O’Connor and ss. 278.1–278.9 of the Criminal Code.
The court held that police occurrence reports created during police investigations do not attract the reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the O’Connor regime.
The Crown was therefore required to disclose the records subject to standard screening, redactions, privilege claims, and relevance.
