Barrie Chercover

The applicant, a civilian manager of the Niagara Regional Police Service's Video Unit, applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to be classified as a senior officer under s. 116 of the Police Services Act.

The application was opposed by the Niagara Regional Police Association.

The Commission applied the factors from the Metro Toronto Police Association decision to determine if the applicant was employed in a supervisory or confidential capacity under s. 114.

Finding that the applicant exercised significant responsibility, initiative, and supervisory duties over his unit and the Ontario Police Video Training Alliance, the Commission granted the application and ordered that he be classified as a senior officer.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a scheduled Summary Hearing and requested the removal of the respondents' counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because the counsel's firm had previously represented the union in grievances where the applicant was the grievor.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove counsel, finding no solicitor-client relationship existed between the applicant and the union's counsel.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed a union grievance regarding balance and deposit time for collectors on overtime shifts.

The applicant argued the arbitrator breached natural justice and reached an unreasonable decision by relying on a without-prejudice settlement.

The Divisional Court found that while the arbitrator erred in admitting the settlement, this did not amount to a denial of natural justice.

The court concluded the arbitrator's decision was reasonable as it was independently supported by uncontradicted evidence and the wording of a prior agreement.

The applicant sought to file a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents argued the application was barred because the Commission had already dismissed the complaint and upheld its dismissal on reconsideration before the application was filed.

The Tribunal found that the complaint was finally dealt with when the Commission refused reconsideration, extinguishing the right to file a transitional application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had dismissed ten applications for certification by the respondent union, finding it was not a construction industry trade union under s. 126(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also made obiter comments regarding s. 15 of the Act.

Because the applicant was successful before the Board in having the certification applications dismissed, the Divisional Court found the application for judicial review to be moot.

Applying the Borowski factors, the Court declined to hear the application, noting there is no public interest in reviewing obiter comments that did not form the ratio of the Board's decision.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicants, comprising twelve female employees of the Hamilton Police Service, the Hamilton Police Services Board, and the Chief of Police, sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision.

The Hearing Officer had quashed a Notice of Hearing containing twenty-four charges of police misconduct, including sexual harassment, against the respondent police officer due to a failure to serve the notice within the six-month statutory period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that none of the applicants had standing.

The court held that the female employees were barred by the Police Services Act from bringing a complaint against a fellow officer, and that binding appellate authority precluded the Chief of Police and the Police Services Board from seeking judicial review of a disciplinary decision they could not directly appeal.

The Chief of Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services that set aside a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct against a police officer.

The officer had been accused of sexually assaulting a woman while off-duty in the Dominican Republic.

The Hearing Officer found the complainant credible and ordered the officer dismissed.

The Commission overturned this decision, finding the complainant's evidence incredible.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Commission failed to apply the correct standard of review (reasonableness) and improperly substituted its own credibility findings for those of the Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer's decision and penalty of dismissal were restored.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct under the Police Services Act arising from allegations of sexual assault and attempted murder while off-duty in the Dominican Republic.

The Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error in accepting the complainant's uncorroborated evidence.

The Commission concluded that the complainant's testimony was incredible, inconsistent, and unsupported by a proper investigation, meaning the charges were not proven on clear and convincing evidence.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' judicial review application on the grounds of delay, the respondents sought costs.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, reducing the claimed amounts due to excessive hours, duplication of effort by multiple lawyers, and unexplained disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $18,000 plus disbursements for the respondent union and $14,000 plus disbursements for the respondent locals.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision but delayed perfecting the application for 13 months.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, noting the applicants offered no explanation for the delay, evaded explicit OLRB orders, and caused ongoing prejudice and uncertainty in a time-sensitive labour relations dispute.

The Minister of Labour referred two questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the authority to appoint a conciliation officer for a collective agreement between the applicant union and the responding employer.

The employer argued that it was bound by the provincial agreement negotiated by the employer bargaining agency and that a separate conciliation officer was redundant.

The Board advised that the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer, but only for the purpose of assisting the parties in renewing the portion of the collective agreement that applies to work outside the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, as the authority to bargain for the ICI sector is vested in the designated bargaining agencies.

The appellant town terminated its contract with a transportation company for the operation of its municipal transit system and commenced operating the system itself, hiring a significant number of the company's laid-off workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a 'sale of a business' had occurred under s. 64 of the Labour Relations Act, binding the town as a successor employer.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the town's appeal, holding that the Board's finding of a nexus between the company and the town was not patently unreasonable given their historical and functional connection.

The Peel Regional Police Association applied under section 116 of the Police Services Act to determine whether a fitness coordinator was a 'member' of the police service (an employee) or an independent contractor.

The Commission applied the Algonquin Tavern criteria to assess her employment status.

The Commission found that the coordinator operated her own business, had other clients, hired her own staff, and was not subject to the day-to-day control of the police service.

Consequently, the Commission concluded she was a self-employed independent contractor, not an employee.

The applicant trade union sought to withdraw its certification application after the Board identified irregularities in the membership evidence.

The responding party employer objected, arguing that a Vice-Chair sitting alone lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the Board should investigate the alleged fraudulent membership evidence.

The Board held that the Vice-Chair had jurisdiction to sit alone pursuant to section 104(12) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further declined to litigate the membership evidence issues, noting that the union had withdrawn the application, and dismissed the certification application.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty of dismissal for discreditable conduct, arising from allegations that he engaged in sexual relations with prostitutes while working in the morality squad.

The appellant argued that the charge sheet was defective, that cross-examination was improperly restricted, and that the penalty was too harsh.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge sheet was valid, the restricted cross-examination involved irrelevant collateral matters, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the officer's conduct with members of the public with whom he had a professional relationship.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for Corrupt Practice and a penalty of forfeiture of three days off, arising from his use of CPIC to run background checks on prospective employees for his private business.

On appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, both parties agreed that an offence had been committed but requested that the charge be substituted to avoid the stigma of a 'corrupt practice' conviction.

The Commission consented to the agreement, quashed the Corrupt Practice conviction, substituted a finding of guilt for Insubordination, and maintained the penalty of forfeiture of three days off.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for major and minor insubordination.

The major charge related to transporting a prisoner and a complainant in the rear of a police cruiser without a screen, contrary to administrative procedure.

The minor charge related to eating a pear while in uniform in a public place.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal on both charges.

The Commission found the transportation procedure was unclear for the specific circumstances, making the officer's conduct reasonable.

Regarding the minor charge, while the strict regulation against eating in uniform remained valid, the Commission allowed the appeal because the regulation was outdated, modified by practice, and an improper penalty of a reprimand had been imposed.

The appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed his conviction and penalty for insubordination.

The charge was laid on the direct order of the Chief of Police without a written complaint being filed.

The Commission reviewed relevant case law and statutory requirements, concluding that a written complaint is a necessary prerequisite for disciplinary charges under the Police Act regulations.

As no written complaint existed, the appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Board of Commissioners of Police applied to the Ontario Police Commission to determine the status of its Chief Clerk, a civilian member, as a senior officer.

The Police Association opposed the application, arguing the position was within the bargaining unit.

The Commission found that the Chief Clerk possessed confidential budget and salary information and participated in in-camera meetings regarding negotiation strategy.

Consequently, the Commission determined the position was of a 'confidential capacity' and granted the application to classify the Chief Clerk as a senior officer.

Constable Roger Anderson appealed his convictions and punishment for 'Neglect of Duty' and 'Discreditable Conduct' arising from an incident where he seized a vial of hash oil and later produced it at a party with fellow officers.

The Commission found that the discipline process raised questions of apparent bias and fairness, particularly because other officers involved were not disciplined and outstanding criminal charges may have influenced the penalty.

The matter was returned for a re-hearing.