Kathryn Chung

The applicant police service sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on a police officer from an 18-month demotion to a 40-hour forfeiture.

The Commission had found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the officer twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and by failing to ensure consistency of disposition with a comparator case.

The Divisional Court held that the Commission's decision was unreasonable, as it misapplied the Kienapple principle by failing to consider the lack of legal nexus between the offences, and misapprehended the facts of the comparator case.

The Commission's decision was set aside and the Hearing Officer's penalty was restored.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her claim for attendant care and housekeeping benefits was statute-barred.

The applicant argued that the limitation period should not begin to run until she was found to be catastrophically impaired, relying on the doctrine of discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule is a 'hard' limitation period triggered by the insurer's clear and unequivocal refusal to pay the benefit, regardless of whether the claimant is aware they have a claim at that time.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her catastrophic impairment benefits.

After the decision, the applicant received an anonymous letter alleging the LAT's executive chair had changed the adjudicator's decision.

Evidence revealed the LAT had an unwritten peer review process where the executive chair reviewed draft decisions.

The Divisional Court held that this process breached the rules of adjudicative independence because consultation was imposed by a superior level of authority rather than requested by the adjudicator.

The decision was set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant infant, through her litigation guardian, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant claimed that a motor vehicle accident caused her premature birth, which in turn caused her to suffer from gastroesophageal reflux disease requiring attendant care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Adjudicator's factual determination that the infant did not require attendant care beyond normal parental duties was supported by the evidence and determinative of the claim, rendering the legal issues regarding causation moot.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The hearing officer, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, and the Divisional Court all applied a balance of probabilities standard of proof.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was bound by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Penner, which established that the standard of proof in PSA hearings is a higher standard of 'clear and convincing evidence', not a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the Commission.