Joy L. Hulton

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and a penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours.

He had refused to answer questions regarding an investigation into the death of an infant, arguing that he was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and had a right to remain silent under the Charter.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the order to answer questions was lawful and that the Charter did not provide a lawful excuse to disobey the order, as any compelled statements could not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for insubordination and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on the appeal.

The appellant sought to introduce affidavits and statements to prove he was under criminal investigation at the time he refused to answer questions, arguing this engaged his Charter rights.

Applying the Palmer test, the Commission found the proposed evidence was not available by due diligence at trial, was relevant to the Charter issue, was credible, and could reasonably have affected the result.

The motion was granted, and the fresh evidence was admitted subject to the respondent's right to cross-examine the deponents.

The Commission and the complainant sought to amend a human rights complaint to add an allegation of reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents objected, arguing that the four-year delay between the alleged acts of reprisal and the notice of intention to amend caused prejudice, as they had not preserved evidence or interviewed witnesses.

The Adjudicator granted the amendment, finding no evidentiary basis to support the claim of prejudice and noting that the respondents had been aware of the related harassment allegations from the outset.