The applicant, a probationary police constable, sought judicial review of the police services board's decision to terminate his employment.
He argued the board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to require witnesses to give evidence under oath or allow cross-examination.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under section 44(3) of the Police Services Act, the board was acting as an employer exercising an administrative function.
The Court held that the board was not clearly wrong or unreasonable in exercising its discretion not to take evidence under oath or permit cross-examination, given the circumstances and the information already before it.
