Jeffrey J. Hewitt

The applicant alleged age discrimination regarding the denial of disability benefits under a collective agreement after turning 60.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior conciliation of a grievance dealt with the substance of the application, or alternatively deferred under s. 45 pending collective bargaining.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the conciliation did not result in a determination of the substance of the application, as the grievance was withdrawn.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, finding no parallel proceeding underway.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after being found guilty of neglect of duty and deceit.

The officer had feigned and exaggerated injuries from an on-duty motorcycle accident to evade work and collect WSIB benefits, which was exposed by surveillance video showing him engaging in strenuous physical activities.

The appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh character evidence on appeal, which the Commission dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

On the main appeal, the Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Williams sentencing factors.

The Commission agreed that the officer's repeated deceit and breach of trust constituted serious misconduct akin to theft of time, irreparably damaging his credibility and the reputation of the police service, justifying the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant purchased a new condominium townhouse and subsequently discovered serious water leaks and mold.

She sued the developer, municipality, and various engineers involved in the project for negligence and breach of contract.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against three sets of engineers, finding they owed no duty of care to the appellant under the Anns/Cooper test and that the Professional Engineers Act does not create a private law duty of care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, noting the engineers had no contractual relationship with the appellant, their design was not shown to be negligent, and their limited on-site inspection duties did not require physical testing.

The appellants, two police officers, appealed a disciplinary penalty of a nine-month demotion in rank for discreditable conduct.

The officers had engaged in a scheme of sending unwanted mail-order items and subscriptions to the homes of three superior officers.

The Commission found that while the misconduct was serious and not merely a practical joke, the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the officers' unblemished service records, positive performance evaluations, and genuine remorse.

The Commission varied the penalty to a four-month demotion in rank.

Two off-duty police officers appealed findings of neglect of duty for failing to report a motor vehicle collision involving their police vehicle and a civilian vehicle.

The officers argued there was no clear evidence of an accident, the hearing was procedurally unfair, the charges were improperly laid, and the reporting order was unclear.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments were supported by evidence, the procedural limitations did not deny natural justice, the Chief of Police had ultimate statutory authority to lay charges, and the reporting order was clear.