3 total
Evidence excluded and accused acquitted after court finds traffic stop was an unlawful, race-based pretext.
The accused was charged with drug trafficking and possessing a loaded firearm after police stopped the rental vehicle in which he was a passenger.
The officers claimed they stopped the vehicle to check licensing and insurance under the Highway Traffic Act.
The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention based on racial profiling.
The court found that the officers concocted a reason to approach the vehicle and that the decision to detain was informed by the race of the occupants.
The court concluded that the stop was an unlawful pretext and a serious violation of section 9 of the Charter.
The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) and the accused was acquitted.
Police officer's appeal of misconduct findings and demotion for covering up for a colleague dismissed.
The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for deceit and discreditable conduct, as well as the penalty of a six-month demotion, arising from his failure to properly investigate a fellow officer's possession of potentially stolen property.
The appellant argued the hearing officer misapprehended evidence and provided deficient reasons.
The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range of outcomes.
Commission deemed notice of appeal validly served despite being sent to the wrong address.
The appellant police officer was found guilty of misconduct and demoted.
His association attempted to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory period but mistakenly couriered it to the wrong address.
The appellant brought a motion, on consent of the respondent police service, for an order that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the late service.
The Commission held that the 30-day time limit in s. 87(1) of the Police Services Act is substantive and cannot be waived.
However, the Commission found that the method of service is procedural.
Exercising its power under its Rules of Practice, the Commission waived the rule regarding the correct address and deemed the notice validly served within the appeal period.
