Joanne E. Mulcahy

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) decision that upheld his misconduct conviction for Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority and ordered a new hearing for a Neglect of Duty charge.

The charges arose from an incident where the officer failed to remove handcuffs from a misidentified suspect after learning they were not the intended target.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OCPC's decision reasonable.

The court upheld the OCPC's dismissal of a fresh evidence motion regarding post-decision communications, found no reversible error in the hearing officer's use of copied precedents, and agreed that the failure to release the misidentified suspect constituted an unlawful arrest.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered three applications related to a previous application by David Swaine, the respondent on a Crown appeal.

Swaine sought orders under sections 682 and 683 of the Criminal Code, including cross-examination of prosecuting Crowns and production of documents from the Executive Legal Officer of the Superior Court of Justice.

Two applications to intervene were brought by the Office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court Judges’ Association, both raising concerns about the administration of justice and judicial independence.

The Crown also sought a sealing order for future materials.

The Court granted leave to intervene to both proposed interveners and dismissed the Crown’s application for a sealing order, finding it inapplicable to the materials at issue.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with sexually assaulting a 17-year-old summer student in an elevator at the police headquarters in 2007.

The trial centered on credibility, as the accused completely denied the allegations and claimed he had no contact with the complainant.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court found the complainant's evidence compelling and rejected the accused's testimony, noting a pattern of downplaying his opportunity to commit the offence.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

Boris Borissov, a Toronto Police Service officer, was sentenced for multiple offences including theft, fraudulent use of bank cards, trafficking stolen property, attempt to obstruct justice, unauthorized use of police computer systems, and possession of a motor vehicle obtained by crime.

The offences involved abusing his position to steal from vulnerable victims (a missing person and a deceased woman) and to assist criminal associates by providing internal police information and obstructing investigations.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for police officers who breach public trust.

Despite mitigating factors such as good character, PTSD, and rehabilitation efforts, the court imposed a global sentence of 7 years' incarceration, finding the offences to be profound and repeated abuses of police power.

The applicants, two police officers charged with theft, obstruct justice, and perjury, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was 41 months and 6 days.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including an implicit waiver by one co-accused, and delay caused by an inaccurate estimate for the preliminary inquiry.

The court also deducted 10 months as an exceptional circumstance due to the COVID-19 pandemic backlog.

After deductions, the net delay for both applicants fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The appeal concerns the openness of a police services board hearing regarding an extension of time for service of a disciplinary notice.

Following an investigation by the Ontario Independent Police Review Director into allegations of police misconduct in the investigation of the death of an Indigenous man, a retired judge appointed as a substitute decision-maker ordered that the extension hearing be held in camera.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and First Nation complainants sought judicial review, arguing that the hearing should be open pursuant to section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Divisional Court upheld the in camera order, finding that the Dagenais/Mentuck test did not apply to administrative proceedings and that the statutory test under the Police Services Act was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the Dagenais/Mentuck test does not apply to administrative proceedings, the Charter right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press recognized in Langenfeld applies to police services board meetings, and the presumption of openness under the Police Services Act must be considered in light of this Charter protection.

The applicant police service sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on a police officer from an 18-month demotion to a 40-hour forfeiture.

The Commission had found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the officer twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and by failing to ensure consistency of disposition with a comparator case.

The Divisional Court held that the Commission's decision was unreasonable, as it misapplied the Kienapple principle by failing to consider the lack of legal nexus between the offences, and misapprehended the facts of the comparator case.

The Commission's decision was set aside and the Hearing Officer's penalty was restored.

The applicant, a police officer, was found guilty of misconduct under the Police Services Act for unlawful arrest and excessive force during the G20 summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct findings but reduced the penalty to a one-month demotion.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the Commission erred in its standard of review and treatment of the Hearing Officer's credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's decision was reasonable and properly deferred to the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The applicant media organization sought judicial review of a decision to hold an in camera hearing for an extension of time application under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act regarding police misconduct allegations.

The applicant argued the decision-maker erred by failing to apply the Dagenais/Mentuck test for open court proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Dagenais/Mentuck test does not apply to administrative or procedural functions under the Police Services Act, which contains its own statutory framework for determining when hearings may be closed to the public.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for unnecessary use of force against a person in custody.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission applied the correct standard of review and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was warranted despite some errors by the Hearing Officer.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

A senior police officer with the Halton Regional Police Service pleaded guilty to breach of trust under section 122 of the Criminal Code for stealing oxycodone pills from a police evidence locker between August 27, 2015 and April 30, 2016.

The officer had developed an addiction to prescription opioids following multiple knee surgeries and work-related injuries, compounded by untreated PTSD and workplace harassment.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years probation, 240 hours of community service, and a victim fine surcharge, finding that exceptional circumstances—including the officer's addiction, mental health issues, early guilty plea, comprehensive rehabilitation efforts, and strong family and community support—justified a discharge despite the serious nature of the breach of trust offense.

An appeal concerning jurisdiction to review a youth justice court decision regarding access to youth records under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Toronto Police Service and a police officer appealed a youth court judge's decision denying access to records.

The Superior Court judge allowed the appeal and ordered production of records.

The Court of Appeal found that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the youth court decision under section 40(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the YCJA is federal legislation.

While certiorari under Part XXVI of the Criminal Code provides an alternative review route, the Court of Appeal declined to determine the appeal on the merits due to the procedural irregularities and set aside the Superior Court decision.

The defendants were charged with sexual assault.

The Crown sought to admit expert toxicologist evidence regarding the effects of "date rape" drugs, consistent with the complainant's symptoms of incapacitation, despite no direct evidence of drug administration.

The defence objected, arguing irrelevance due to the absence of a drug charge and late disclosure of new testimonial details.

The court ruled the expert evidence admissible, finding it relevant to the issue of consent and the complainant's incapacitation, even without knowing the exact drug or its administration method.

The court noted that late disclosure, if remedied by adjournment, affects weight rather than admissibility.

The Chief of Police appealed a youth court judge's decision denying the disclosure of a young person's youth records.

The records were sought by both the prosecuting police service and the subject officer for use in a police disciplinary proceeding, where the young person was a key witness.

The appeal court found that the principle of diminished moral culpability under the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not shield a young person's records from disclosure when they are a witness and their credibility is at issue.

The court set aside the youth court judge's decision and ordered the records produced, subject to publication bans and redactions to protect the young person's identity.

This is a preliminary inquiry into charges of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death against two Ontario Provincial Police officers.

The officers were engaged in a high-speed pursuit of a stolen vehicle driven by a prohibited driver that resulted in a collision with an innocent third party, causing her death.

The Crown alleged the officers failed to terminate the pursuit when the risk to public safety outweighed the benefit of apprehension, and that their driving was objectively dangerous.

The defence argued the officers' conduct was within their training and policy, and that neither supervising sergeant terminated the pursuit.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both officers to trial on both counts.

The police service applied for an order under the Youth Criminal Justice Act to disclose a young person's police records for use in a police disciplinary hearing against an officer.

The subject officer also sought access to the records.

The court held that both the police service and the officer must apply for access under sections 119(1)(s) and 123 of the Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that neither applicant established a valid interest in the records, as the records had no nexus to the alleged misconduct and were not relevant to the young person's credibility or character.

Furthermore, granting access would undermine the privacy protections and principles of diminished moral culpability under the Act.

Five police officers appealed their convictions for attempting to obstruct justice and perjury arising from a warrantless search of a drug suspect's apartment and subsequent efforts to conceal it.

The officers argued various trial errors, including Charter violations regarding the use of their preliminary inquiry testimony, improper jury instructions, and abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible errors.

The Crown cross-appealed the 45-day conditional sentences.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding the sentences demonstrably unfit for police officers committing perjury and obstruction of justice, and substituted 3-year custodial sentences, but stayed their operation due to the passage of time.

A police constable was charged with assault with a weapon arising from his use of a police asp during the arrest of a protester at the G-20 demonstrations in Toronto on June 26, 2010.

The Crown alleged that the force used exceeded what was necessary.

The defendant testified that he used the asp to assist fellow officers in securing the arrestee's limbs.

The court found that the defendant's use of force was not proportionate, necessary, or reasonable, and that his explanation for the blows was an after-the-fact justification rather than the actual reason for them.

The defendant was found guilty.

The appellant Ontario Provincial Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that substituted a penalty of demotion for the immediate dismissal of the respondent police officer.

The officer had previously pled guilty to criminal charges and discreditable conduct for stealing gasoline and office supplies.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer erred by disregarding positive character evidence, focusing on irrelevant medical issues, and failing to properly consider rehabilitation.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the penalty of demotion.

Five police officers were convicted of attempting to obstruct justice, and three of them were also convicted of perjury, arising from a warrantless search of a drug suspect's apartment and subsequent false memo book entries and testimony to conceal the timing of the search.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences of three to four years, while the defence sought non-custodial sentences.

The court considered the serious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and deterrence, but also weighed significant mitigating factors, including the catastrophic impact of the prolonged 14-year investigation and proceedings on the officers' lives, careers, and health.

The court concluded that a penitentiary term was not warranted and imposed a 45-day conditional sentence (house arrest) for each offender.