Joanne E. Mulcahy

The Crown sought leave to call reply evidence from a former federal drug prosecutor regarding general expectations of the federal Crown concerning the preparation of police Crown briefs, disclosure obligations, and the handling of confidential informants.

The proposed evidence was intended to rebut defence testimony suggesting disclosure had been made in accordance with Department of Justice policy.

The court held the evidence remained only marginally relevant because no evidentiary link connected those general expectations to the accused police officers or their training.

Given its limited probative value and the risk that calling a sitting Superior Court judge as a witness would unduly influence the jury, the court found the potential prejudice outweighed the minimal probative value.

The application to introduce the reply evidence was therefore refused.

In a criminal trial involving allegations of assault, theft, perjury, and conspiracy to obstruct justice by police officers, the Crown sought to introduce Toronto Police Service directives and evidence of standard police practices.

The defence objected on grounds including irrelevance, prejudice, and hearsay.

The court held that the directives and expert evidence regarding general police norms were admissible because they provided context for assessing the accused officers’ conduct and state of mind, particularly regarding omissions in memo books, handling of seized property, disclosure practices, and use of informants.

However, testimony about how particular directives were implemented at a specific police division without personal knowledge was excluded as hearsay.

Selected directives and limited expert evidence were admitted subject to these constraints.

Media organizations sought permission to use electronic devices to transmit information from inside the courtroom and to make audio recordings during a criminal jury trial.

The court considered s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act and an applicable practice direction permitting unobtrusive audio recording by journalists solely to supplement handwritten notes.

The court authorized such audio recordings and permitted journalists to transmit information from inside the courtroom, provided proceedings were not disrupted.

The court also established a procedure governing media access to large volumes of documentary exhibits, requiring undertakings preventing publication until a judicial determination confirmed sufficient evidence to place the document before the jury.

A publication restriction was ordered for specified personal identifying information contained in documentary materials.

The applicant police officers sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering the production of their personnel files in relation to a human rights complaint.

After the police service confirmed no responsive records existed, the respondents argued the application was moot.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no live controversy remained.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting that recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence regarding police disciplinary records should be applied in a genuine adversarial context.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for insubordination after conducting CPIC searches on his wife's vehicle at her request.

The Toronto Police Service cross-appealed the Commission's decision to reduce the officer's penalty from a seven-day to a three-day forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the CPIC searches were not exclusively for police business and that the Hearing Officer implicitly rejected the officer's defence of honest belief.

The Court also upheld the Commission's interpretation of the Police Services Act, confirming that prior informal discipline must be expunged after two years and cannot be considered in sentencing unless a new finding of misconduct is proven within that period.

A police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) that dismissed his appeal from a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct.

The officer argued the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction because the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that OCCPS applied an incorrect legal test to determine when sufficient facts came to the Chief's attention, rendering its decision unreasonable.

The Court further held that the officer's guilty plea did not waive his right to appeal the jurisdictional defect, as consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a statutory tribunal.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a finding of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant discharged his firearm at the tires of a fleeing stolen vehicle during a dangerous pursuit.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer and the Commission applied the wrong test by focusing on the objective reasonableness of the force used rather than the appellant's subjective 'sole purpose' for discharging the firearm under s. 8 of O. Reg. 546/99.

The appeal was allowed and the charge of discreditable conduct was dismissed.

Several police officers sought judicial review of a decision by the Toronto Police Services Board granting the Chief of Police an extension of time to serve notices of disciplinary hearings under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The officers argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to provide full disclosure of the investigative brief, denying an oral hearing, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's procedure met the minimal requirements of fairness for an administrative, pre-charge decision and that the Board's decision to allow the delay was reasonable given the unprecedented complexity of the underlying criminal investigation.

The applicants, several police officers, brought a motion for a limited publication ban regarding Notices of Hearing and the Chief of Police's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that inadequate notice was given for the relief regarding the Notices of Hearing, and that the applicants failed to satisfy the Dagenais/Mentuck test for a publication ban on the Chief's report, agreeing with the prior endorsement of the motion judge.

The applicants, police officers facing criminal charges, brought a motion for a publication ban and a sealing order regarding a confidential report by the Chief of Police.

The report was filed in support of an application for leave to serve notices of hearing under the Police Services Act.

The applicants argued that media access to the report would prejudice their right to a fair trial and risk witness tainting.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a serious risk to the administration of justice, as the report was general in nature and alternative measures like challenges for cause were available.

The moving party, the Chief of Police, brought a motion to have two applications for judicial review heard at the same time pursuant to Rule 6.01(1).

Both applications arose from a decision of the Toronto Police Services Board regarding the delay in serving notices of hearing under the Police Services Act.

The court found that the applications arose out of the same transaction or occurrence and shared common questions of law and fact.

To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results, the court granted the motion and ordered the applications to be heard together.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty of resignation or dismissal.

The misconduct involved nine separate incidents of careless use of a firearm and one incident of showing a scrotum piercing to a female officer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer had considered the appropriate factors, including the gravity of the misconduct, employment history, and rehabilitation prospects, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range.

The appellant appealed convictions for historical sexual offences arising from alleged genital touching during karate stretching demonstrations involving former students.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed serious legal error by failing to properly analyze the effect of possible collusion and inadvertent tainting caused by an organizing witness's extensive involvement and repeated meetings among complainants.

The court also found that the trial judge improperly reversed the burden of proof, scrutinized defence evidence more harshly than Crown evidence, relied excessively on demeanour, and misapprehended significant parts of the record.

Although the verdict was not found unreasonable, the convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

Two newspaper reporters applied for judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner upholding the refusal by the Police and the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose various police records.

The requested records included the names of all police officers, public complaints data, disciplinary tribunal dockets, and criminal charges against officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Inquiry Officers' decisions applying exemptions for safety, privacy, and employment-related matters were reasonable and correct.