Joël M. Dubois

The appellant police officer sought to introduce new medical evidence and internal correspondence regarding his post-disposition work performance on his appeal of a disciplinary demotion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and dismissed the motion.

The Commission found that the medical evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the penalty hearing, and that post-disposition work performance was not relevant where the penalty imposed was demotion rather than dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay for conducting unauthorized CPIC searches on an individual involved in a domestic relationship with the officer's friend.

The officer argued that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to order the disclosure of a 2007 investigation file regarding similar CPIC searches for which the officer was cleared.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the strict criminal disclosure standards from Stinchcombe do not apply to administrative police discipline hearings, and that the disclosure provided was sufficient to allow the officer to know the case to be met.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision acquitting a police officer of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and insubordination.

The officer had arrested the appellant for allegedly breaching release conditions and conducted a strip search behind a convenience store.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made significant errors of law and fact, failed to provide adequate reasons, and ignored material evidence.

The Commission revoked the acquittals and substituted findings of guilt on both charges, concluding the arrest lacked reasonable grounds and the strip search violated police policy.

Following an appeal, cross-appeal, and fresh evidence motion where the respondents were successful, the parties made submissions on costs.

The respondents claimed over $98,000 in total on a partial indemnity scale, while the appellants argued no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, a significantly reduced amount.

Applying the Boucher principles, the Court of Appeal fixed costs at $30,000 for the Receiver and $7,500 for the trust company, noting the appellants' alternative of not suing and the trust company's minor role in the appeal.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order approving a court-appointed receiver's recommendation to sell a contaminated property to the polluter and settle related damage claims.

The appellants argued the property and claims were undervalued and sought to introduce fresh evidence alleging the motion judge was pressured into releasing his decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the receiver acted providentially and the settlement was commercially reasonable.

The Court allowed the receiver's cross-appeal, setting aside the motion judge's order granting the appellants leave to sue the receiver, as the motion judge applied the wrong legal test.