John Peter Zarudny

The Ministry of Correctional Services applied for judicial review to prevent a Board of Inquiry from considering whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the implementation of its previous human rights order.

The Board had found the workplace to be poisoned and retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the Board should first be permitted to determine the extent of its retained jurisdiction and the relevance of the new allegations to the implementation of its remedy.

Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the successful defendants, Woodhouse, Gerrits, and Ontario, their costs of the motion before the lower court and their motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court, in addition to their costs of the appeal.

The plaintiffs and the remaining defendants agreed that no costs would be awarded among them due to divided success.

Appeals from rule 21 motions in an action arising from a fatal police shooting and the subsequent SIU investigation.

The majority held that the tort of misfeasance in public office requires abuse of statutory or administrative power, and that an alleged failure by police officers to co-operate with an SIU investigation under s. 113(9) of the Police Services Act was a breach of duty, not an abuse of power.

The majority struck the misfeasance claim against the officers and the negligent supervision claim against Ontario, but allowed the negligent supervision claim against the police chief to proceed.

The majority also held the Board could not be liable for negligent supervision because the Act confined it to policy functions and precluded operational direction.

A dissent would have permitted the misfeasance and broader negligent supervision claims to proceed.

The respondents' child, who has cerebral palsy, was placed in a special education class by a Tribunal contrary to the parents' wishes.

The Court of Appeal held this violated section 15 of the Charter and read in a presumption of integration into the Education Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding the constitutional validity of the Act without the required statutory notice.

Furthermore, the Tribunal's decision did not violate section 15 of the Charter, as it was based on the child's best interests and actual needs, and did not impose a burden or disadvantage.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of resignation or dismissal.

Pending the appeal, the appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh documentary and viva voce evidence regarding his character and work performance.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to have the appellant's salary held in trust pending the appeal.

The Commission applied the Palmer test and admitted one performance evaluation report but denied the other fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced at the original hearing.

The Commission dismissed the respondent's motion, holding that under the Police Services Act, an officer who has not been outright dismissed is entitled to continue receiving their salary pending the final disposition of their appeal.

The appellant police sergeant appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and a penalty of four days' lost pay.

The charge arose from his failure to place himself on duty and take charge of a search and rescue operation for three missing boaters while he was the on-call supervisor.

The Commission found that the Canadian Coast Guard had jurisdiction over the search and that the appellant's physical presence would not have altered the tragic outcome.

The Commission concluded that the appellant did not neglect his duty and quashed the conviction and penalty.

The Board of Inquiry issued a supplementary decision regarding whether costs should be awarded against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after dismissing a complaint found to have been made in bad faith.

The Board held that under section 40(6) of the Human Rights Code, costs may be awarded if a complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith, and the Commission was aware or should have been aware of this fact.

The Board found that the Commission conducted a reasonable investigation and could not have known of the complainant's bad faith until the hearing.

The request for costs was dismissed.

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to a discipline offence after receiving a discharge for a criminal conviction under s. 206(1)(e) of the Criminal Code for participating in a pyramid scheme.

The hearing officer imposed a penalty of a reduction in rank for one year, which amounted to a financial loss of approximately $4,000.

The officer appealed the penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the penalty too severe given the officer's unblemished record and the nature of the offence, which was characterized as a prohibited form of gambling.

The penalty was reduced to a loss of five days' pay and a reprimand.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and penalty of forfeiture of two vacation days for a breach of confidence.

The officer had queried the Canadian Police Information Centre and warned his brother, a lawyer, that a client was thought to be violent and dangerous.

The Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, rejecting arguments regarding non-disclosure of unedited documents and the sufficiency of evidence.

However, finding the breach to be technical and understandable, the Commission reduced the penalty to a reprimand.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of demotion to the salary level of a Probationary Constable after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for touching a female officer's breast while off duty and intoxicated.

The appellant argued the penalty was too severe given his positive performance appraisals and the circumstances.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the off-duty status and intoxication were not mitigating factors, and that the penalty imposed was the least acceptable penalty for the conduct.

The appellant, a Detective Sergeant and Detachment Commander, appealed his convictions on two counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a reduction in rank to First Class Constable.

The charges stemmed from allegations of sexual harassment, including unwelcome comments and physical touching, directed at a civilian dispatcher and a co-op student.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals against both conviction and penalty, finding that the evidence supported the convictions, the procedural rulings were appropriate, and the penalty was the minimum acceptable given the serious nature of sexual harassment by a superior officer.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed his conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

He was convicted of failing to diligently inquire into a complaint from a female constable that she had been indecently assaulted by a male constable.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding ample evidence to support the Hearing Officer's credibility findings.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty of a two-day pay forfeiture, holding that the penalty imposed after a formal hearing is not limited by the lesser penalty proposed during the informal discipline process.

Two employees filed human rights complaints alleging racial discrimination and harassment.

One complainant was subjected to racial slurs and physical assaults by a co-worker.

The Board found the co-worker personally liable for racial harassment but dismissed the complaint against the employer, finding the employer did not condone the conduct and had disciplined the co-worker.

The second complainant, a union steward, alleged his termination was racially motivated.

The Board dismissed this complaint, finding the termination was based on the employer's belief that the complainant had counselled a work slow-down and his history of disruptive behaviour, rather than any racial motivation.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Force Adjudicator after he pleaded guilty to a disciplinary charge of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from his criminal conviction for sexual assault, for which he received a conditional discharge.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, noting that the officer had testified at his criminal trial and his evidence was rejected as unbelievable and unreasonable.

The Commission held that because a police officer's duty requires testifying in court, the destruction of his credibility meant he could no longer function as a police officer.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of ten forfeited vacation days imposed for discreditable conduct related to operating a sporting goods store without the Commissioner's consent.

The parties presented a joint submission recommending a reduced penalty of five vacation days, citing a change in the Ontario Provincial Police Force's policy regarding secondary employment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission accepted the joint submission, allowed the appeal, and substituted a penalty of five vacation days.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied to have the City of London and the County of Middlesex declared the employer of the nurses at the Board of Health Middlesex-London Health Unit for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

Applying the Haldimand-Norfolk test, the Tribunal found that the Health Unit has overall financial responsibility, responsibility for compensation practices, and the core activity of providing public health programs independently.

The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Health Middlesex-London Health Unit is the employer, and dismissed the application.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the penalty of resignation.

The charge arose from a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl.

The appellant had been acquitted of criminal sexual assault charges because the Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the conduct was discreditable and contrary to society's expectations.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of resignation, noting the appellant's prior criminal and Police Act convictions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct for taking merchandise from a store without paying.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of forfeiture of 20 days' vacation leave.

The appellant argued that psychiatric evidence showed he was under severe stress and did not intend to take the items.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the psychiatric evidence provided an explanation but not a lawful excuse for the conduct.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting that the adjudicator had properly considered the appellant's unblemished record and the psychiatric evidence as mitigating factors.

The grievor, a cashier in a government office, was discharged for allegedly stealing cash.

The employer relied on circumstantial evidence, a failed polygraph test, and a subsequent confession to police.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the circumstantial evidence did not meet the clear and convincing standard of proof required for allegations of criminal conduct.

The Board conducted an extensive review of polygraph evidence, concluding it should be rejected on policy grounds and due to reliability concerns.

The Board also found the grievor's confession unreliable, as it was likely induced by the psychological pressures of the polygraph examination.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor reinstated.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of forced resignation or dismissal after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for shoplifting items worth approximately $70.

The appellant presented psychiatric evidence that he was under severe stress due to his own battle with Hodgkin's disease and his father's serious illness.

The Commission accepted that the stress explained, but did not excuse, the conduct, and upheld the finding of guilt.

However, considering the appellant's 18 years of unblemished service and his mental turmoil, the Commission found dismissal too severe.

The penalty was varied to a reduction in rank from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for at least six months.