Amal Chaudry

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The Hearing Officer imposed a 21-month demotion to Second Class Constable.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by overemphasizing aggravating factors, such as policy memoranda, and failing to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's low breathalyzer readings, lack of impairment indicia, and exemplary work record.

The Commission allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty to a 12-month demotion.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the Ontario Provincial Police, several law firms, and Legal Aid Ontario on the basis of place of origin, family status, marital status, age, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based on mere speculation and failed to establish a link between the respondents' conduct and any protected ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety for having no reasonable prospect of success, lack of jurisdiction, and delay.

An inmate applied for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid seeking release from segregation, quashing of disciplinary sanctions, and orders facilitating personal review of criminal disclosure while in pre-trial custody.

By the hearing, the segregation issue was moot.

The court granted leave to treat the due process complaint as judicial review, but declined certiorari because the applicant had an available appeal to the Minister under the correctional regulation.

The court also held that any alleged impairment of the applicant's ability to review disclosure and make full answer and defence should be addressed by the Ontario Court of Justice seized of the pending criminal trials.

The application was dismissed with no costs.

Four applicants sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, arguing that their continued immigration detention was unlawful.

The court held that it should decline habeas corpus jurisdiction because the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its regulations create a complete, comprehensive and expert scheme for detention review, with further judicial review available in the Federal Court.

Applying the Peiroo exception recognized in the habeas corpus jurisprudence, the court found the statutory process to be at least as broad and advantageous as superior court habeas corpus review in this context.

All applications were dismissed, and a post-hearing request to seal one applicant's record was also denied.

The applicant, a Correctional Officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, and colour regarding the employer's interpretation of her medical restrictions and subsequent reassignment to visitor reception.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the employer accommodated the applicant's restrictions and that her claims of differential treatment based on race and colour were purely speculative.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.