Kelley Jane Bryan

Appeal from the Consent and Capacity Board arising from a finding that the appellant met the criteria for involuntary patient status under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant no longer challenged the involuntary admission criteria but sought Charter relief based on an alleged non-consensual injection administered while detained, including a declaration under s. 7 and rescission of a certificate of renewal nunc pro tunc.

The court held the declaration could not be granted because it had not been properly raised before the Board or in the notice of appeal and would be procedurally unfair on the existing record.

The rescission issue was moot because the appellant had been discharged and the certificate had expired.

In any event, the requested remedy lacked the necessary nexus to the statutory issue before the Board.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of a motion judge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the threshold test set out in Rule 62.02(4)(a) or (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also noted that reasons for refusing leave to appeal an interlocutory order generally need not be given.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 18 days forfeiture imposed after he pled guilty to insubordination for conducting unauthorized CPIC queries for personal reasons.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer ignored a joint submission on penalty and imposed an excessive forfeiture.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding there was no joint submission as the parties had proposed different penalties.

The Commission also held that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the relevant sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the officer's prior disciplinary record, and the need for deterrence, and that the penalty was within the acceptable range.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 18 days forfeiture imposed following a guilty plea to one count of insubordination for conducting numerous unauthorized CPIC queries for personal reasons.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by exceeding a joint submission on penalty and failing to properly weigh dispositional factors.

The Commission found there was no joint submission, as the parties proposed different penalties.

The Commission upheld the penalty, finding the Hearing Officer properly considered the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's disciplinary history, deterrence, and relevant precedents.

The appeal was dismissed.