Lawrence Gridin

The appellant appealed the dismissal of misconduct charges against four Toronto Police Service officers involved in his arrest during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had found the officers' use of distractionary strikes justified due to the appellant's active resistance.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the decision on a reasonableness standard and found no error in the Hearing Officer's conclusions, confirming the dismissal of the charges.

The Commission noted concerns about qualifying a TPS training officer as an expert witness but held it did not affect the outcome as it was not raised as a ground of appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for insubordination and neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

After the appeal was heard but before a decision was rendered, the appellant retired from the police service.

The Commission held that pursuant to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act, it lost jurisdiction over the matter once the appellant ceased to be a police officer.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a reprimand for the superintendent's role in ordering the unlawful arrest and detention of the complainants.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for such unprecedented and highly scrutinized Charter breaches was of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The superintendent had been found guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and discreditable conduct for ordering the 'kettling' and unlawful arrest of protestors, and was penalized with a forfeiture of 30 days off.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for a senior commander in these unprecedented circumstances is of significant importance to the policing profession and the public.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissing his appeal of a police discipline hearing outcome.

The Commission had ruled the appeal was filed out of time because, although faxed and received on the final day of the 30-day limit, a statutory deeming provision deemed faxed documents received the following day.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the deeming provision created a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute one.

The provision is intended to protect the serving party, not to act as a trap to deprive them of a statutory right of appeal when actual receipt within the time limit is established.

The moving party brought a motion to add the Independent Police Review Director, the Toronto Police Service, and several constables as respondents in his application for judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The constables opposed only the addition of the Director.

The court found that the Director was already imperfectly named as a respondent in the body of the notice of application and could be added to the heading without leave.

Alternatively, the court held that the Director ought to have been named as a respondent because he had a statutory right to be heard on the appeal before the Commission and his unique oversight role under the Police Services Act made his presence necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues.

The motion was granted.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for insubordination after discharging his firearm at a fleeing vehicle, contrary to a Toronto Police Service procedure.

The appellant argued he had a lawful excuse due to an honest, subjective belief that his life was in imminent danger.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that a lawful excuse requires both a subjective belief and objectively reasonable actions.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the appellant's actions were not objectively reasonable, as he had removed himself from the imminent threat before firing.

The applicant, a police officer, was convicted of attempted murder after shooting a person on a streetcar.

He brought a constitutional challenge against the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for attempted murder with a restricted firearm under s. 239(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the high moral blameworthiness of the applicant's conduct, nor was it overbroad in its application to police officers.

This case concerns the sentencing of Police Constable James Forcillo for attempted murder.

The court first addressed a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum punishment of five years for attempted murder under s.239(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, finding it did not infringe ss.12 or 7 of the Charter.

The sentencing judge then determined the appropriate sentence, rejecting the defence's submission that Forcillo's moral blameworthiness was low due to a misperception.

The court found that Forcillo acted contrary to his training by shooting a potential threat and failing to use de-escalation, constituting a high level of moral blameworthiness and an egregious breach of trust.

Despite mitigating factors such as positive personal characteristics and the impact of protective custody, the aggravating factors, including the abuse of authority and the serious actual harm caused, substantially outweighed them.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence.

A sentence of six years in the penitentiary was imposed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of eight days' pay.

The misconduct involved the officer repeatedly accepting free meals from a restaurant while in uniform.

The Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review to the finding of misconduct and the penalty.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible, and that the penalty was within the appropriate range given the officer's conduct and disciplinary history.

The appeal was dismissed and the decision confirmed.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's appeal for failure to serve a Notice of Appeal within the thirty-day statutory period under the Police Services Act.

The complainant faxed the Notice of Appeal on the thirtieth day, but under section 96(2) of the Act, faxed documents are deemed received on the following day.

The Commission held that the appeal was served on the thirty-first day and that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit.

The appeal was dismissed as untimely.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault arising from a domestic dispute where he was found to have pushed a garbage bag into his wife's face.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant of more serious assault allegations from the same incident due to credibility concerns but convicted him on the garbage bag incident.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to adequately explain why he could be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on one part of the incident but not the other, and expressed concern over the trial judge's application of the standard of proof.

The conviction was set aside and, given the circumstances and time passed, no new trial was ordered.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination under the Code of Conduct.

The officer had refused an order from a superior to change his investigative conclusion on a Motor Vehicle Collision Report, maintaining his honest belief that a civilian driver, rather than a fellow officer, was at fault.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the order was unlawful because it would have forced the officer to sign a document he believed to be inaccurate, which is tantamount to deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The conviction was substituted with an acquittal.

The appellant police officer was convicted of insubordination for refusing to comply with an order from a superior to change the finding of fault on a motor vehicle collision report.

The officer honestly believed his original conclusion was accurate.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the order was unlawful because it would have forced the officer to sign a document he believed to be inaccurate, which is tantamount to deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was substituted with an acquittal.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of its application for certiorari and mandamus to set aside a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the respondent, an Emergency Task Force officer, on a charge of manslaughter.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction by weighing the evidence regarding the careless use of a firearm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error.

The preliminary inquiry judge properly engaged in a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence, and there was no evidence of a marked departure from the standard of care required of an ETF officer.

The Crown applied for certiorari seeking to quash a preliminary inquiry judge’s decision discharging a police officer from charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter arising from the fatal shooting of a suspect during the execution of a search warrant.

The Crown conceded the murder charge but argued the officer should have been committed to trial for manslaughter based on careless use of a firearm, advancing two theories: that the officer released the firearm onto a sling while grappling with the deceased, or that he had his finger on the trigger and unintentionally fired.

The Superior Court held the preliminary inquiry judge applied the correct committal test and did not commit jurisdictional error.

The evidence showed the officer’s conduct complied with training and police policy, and the proposed inferences of careless firearm use were unsupported and speculative.

Certiorari was therefore unavailable.

A preliminary inquiry into charges of second degree murder and careless use of a firearm arising from the death of Eric Osawe during a dynamic police entry.

The Crown alleged that the accused officer deliberately fired his MP5 submachine gun during a struggle with the deceased.

The court found no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer intentional discharge, and further found that the officer's conduct was consistent with professional standards.

The accused was discharged on all counts.

A police constable was charged with assault causing bodily harm after forcibly taking an intoxicated man to the ground during an arrest for public intoxication.

The Crown alleged excessive use of force.

The court found the arrest was lawful under the Liquor Licence Act and that the force used was necessary and not excessive.

The officer believed the arrestee was about to strike his partner and pulled him away, resulting in an unintended fall.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused, a police constable charged with assault causing bodily harm, brought a motion for an order requiring the Crown to disclose occurrence reports relating to police investigations of the complainant.

The accused sought evidence of the complainant's history of intoxication, violence, and resistance to arrest to support a defence of justified use of force during arrest.

The court found that the occurrence reports constituted first-party disclosure obligations under the Crown's duty to disclose, applying the principles from R. v. McNeil.

The court ordered the Crown to examine sealed packages from the police services and review all occurrence reports for potentially relevant information relating to the complainant's past conduct.

Eight police officers sought judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Police Services Board allowing the Chief of Police to delay serving Notices of Hearing for public complaints arising from the G20 summit.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application for prematurity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review of an interlocutory administrative decision.

The court noted the officers had an adequate alternative remedy to raise the issue of prejudice caused by delay through an abuse of process motion before the hearing officer.