Jodie-Lynn Waddilove

The appellant police officer brought a motion within her disciplinary appeal to adduce fresh evidence and obtain disclosure regarding her permanent removal from the Emergency Response Team (ERT).

She argued the removal constituted disguised discipline that resulted in a loss of specialty and overtime pay, which should have been considered by the Hearing Officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test and granted the request to adduce fresh evidence regarding the financial impact of her removal.

The Commission also applied the West Park Hospital test and ordered the respondent to disclose materials related to the removal decision, finding the information arguably relevant to the live issue of whether the removal was disguised discipline or a purely operational decision.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and neglect of duty, as well as a six-month demotion penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's decision, applying the Dunsmuir standard of review.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons regarding the use of force and the failure to provide medical assistance were insufficient and unreasonable, revoking those convictions.

However, the Commission upheld the conviction for neglect of duty regarding the failure to document the complainant's injury.

The penalty was consequently reduced to a forfeiture of three days' pay.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale for both the appeal and the proceeding below.

The costs were fixed at $45,000 for one group of appellants, $20,000 for another group, and $60,000 for a single appellant, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

Appeal from dismissal of an application challenging the enforcement of immigration sponsorship undertakings after sponsored relatives received Ontario social assistance.

The court held that the federal and provincial governments have a case-by-case discretion whether to enforce sponsorship debt, and that Ontario unlawfully fettered that discretion by applying policies inconsistent with the family class immigration scheme.

The court further held that sponsors are owed procedural fairness before enforcement, including a meaningful opportunity to explain relevant personal and financial circumstances, consideration of those submissions, and notice of the decision made.

The court rejected the argument that undertakings signed under the former immigration statute became unenforceable under the new regime.