Gary R. Clewley

The accused, R.S., was charged with sexual assault involving the complainant, A.P., a close family friend's daughter.

The complainant testified about an incident where the accused touched her breast, and earlier instances of slapping her bum.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, noting significant inconsistencies in the complainant's account regarding the timing and conclusion of the alleged incident, particularly concerning a phone call and her initial statement to the police.

These inconsistencies, deemed central to the complainant's narrative, undermined the reliability of her testimony.

Coupled with the accused's consistent denial, the court found that a reasonable doubt existed.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of the sexual assault charge.

Brent Armitage pleaded guilty to failing to remain at a collision that resulted in death.

The Crown sought 18-24 months real jail, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim's family, and the offender's background, including his genuine remorse and health issues (sleep apnea).

Applying the principles of proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by 18 months probation, a 5-year driving prohibition, and other conditions, finding that a conditional sentence would better achieve the sentencing objectives than real jail given the specific circumstances.

The offender, a police officer of Indigenous descent, pleaded guilty to breach of trust for conducting unauthorized searches on police databases and sharing the information with an acquaintance.

The court considered the offender's severe addiction issues, PTSD from his policing career, and his disconnection from his Indigenous heritage as significant Gladue factors.

Finding that the offence was an aberration and that a conviction was not necessary for general deterrence, the court granted an absolute discharge.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who pled guilty to neglect of duty regarding a sexual assault investigation.

The hearing officer had accepted a joint submission for the forfeiture of 64 hours of time.

The Commission applied the test for leave to appeal and found that the decision was not clearly wrong, nor did the issues raised by the appellant rise to the level of significant importance to the policing profession or the community at large.

The request for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering his dismissal after he pleaded guilty to insubordination and discreditable conduct, including unauthorized CPIC queries, illegal drug use, and requesting a ticket be voided.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding a PTSD diagnosis.

The Commission dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, concluding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the dispositional factors and the severity of the misconduct.

The plaintiff moved for an extension of the deadline to set the action down for trial, while the defendants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The action, stemming from a 1998 arrest, had been stayed due to related criminal proceedings until 2017.

The court applied a contextual approach, considering the preference for merits-based decisions and timely resolution.

It found the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for the delay, including the criminal proceedings and subsequent steps taken to gather evidence.

The court was not satisfied that the defendants demonstrated actual prejudice.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was granted, extending the deadline, and the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed.

A 23-year veteran Toronto Police sergeant was charged with two counts of sexual assault arising from incidents on September 24, 2015 and November 1, 2015.

The accused offered rides home to two young women leaving bars in the Entertainment District and allegedly touched them on their inner thighs without consent.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming he offered the rides out of concern for the women's safety.

The trial judge found both complainants credible and rejected the accused's evidence, finding his explanations implausible and inconsistent with his actions.

The judge found the accused deliberately failed to follow police policies and procedures to conceal his conduct.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused, a Toronto Police Service officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm after performing an uncontrolled take down of a cyclist during a traffic stop.

The cyclist had run a red light and was arrested for failing to identify himself under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that while the arrest was lawful, the officer pushed the cyclist face down to the ground out of frustration and annoyance, not out of any genuine safety concern.

The force used was deemed excessive, unreasonable, and disproportionate to the circumstances, resulting in a finding of guilt.

The Crown appealed a certiorari decision quashing a committal for trial on a charge of breach of trust contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code.

The respondent, an on-duty police officer, refused to assist a member of the public who reported a potential suicide in progress in High Park, Toronto.

The victim subsequently died by suicide.

The application judge found no evidence capable of supporting the necessary mens rea for breach of trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, holding that while the respondent's conduct was egregious, the Crown failed to establish an improper purpose materially different from the mere failure to perform his duty.

The court distinguished between misfeasance in public office (which requires an improper purpose) and neglect of official duty (which does not), and held that a desire to avoid an unpleasant duty does not constitute the requisite improper purpose.

The Crown appealed the respondent police officer's acquittal on two counts of sexual assault.

At trial, the Crown relied on similar fact evidence from two complainants who alleged the respondent sexually assaulted them in his marked police vehicle after offering them rides home.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding the complainants' evidence unreliable and concluding the similar fact evidence could not assist.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by adopting a siloed approach to the similar fact evidence, failing to consider the improbability of coincidence, and misapprehending the Crown's reliance on extrinsic similar acts.

A new trial was ordered.

A Hamilton Police officer with approximately two years of experience was charged with assault causing bodily harm after punching a suspect in the face during an arrest.

The suspect, a 35-year-old man with mental health issues, had spat on the officer.

The officer delivered three punches total: one immediately after being spat upon (conceded as reasonable by the Crown), and two additional punches while the suspect was on the ground and handcuffed.

The court found the latter two punches were excessive and not protected by section 25 of the Criminal Code, as they were delivered in retribution rather than for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either of the two excessive punches caused the suspect's facial fracture, which required surgery.

The officer was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm but convicted of the lesser included offence of assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm after driving with a blood alcohol level more than double the legal limit, resulting in a vehicle rollover that caused serious injury to his passenger.

The Crown sought 12 to 18 months imprisonment with a 3-year driving prohibition, while the defence sought 90 days intermittent with a 4-year prohibition.

The court imposed 8 months imprisonment followed by 2 years probation and a 3-year driving prohibition, emphasizing the principles of general deterrence and denunciation while considering the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the constitutional issues had already been decided.

The Court held that under the current Limitations Act, fiduciary claims are subject to limitation periods as they fall under 'claims pursued in court' pursuant to section 2(1).

However, the Court noted the appellant could still pursue a claim solely for declaratory relief, which is not subject to limitations under the Act.

The complainant, a civilian employee of the Toronto Police Services Board of Afghan descent, alleged he was subjected to a poisoned work environment following a discriminatory telephone message left by a colleague the day after September 11, 2001.

He also alleged historical discrimination dating back to 1994 and that the employer failed to adequately investigate his complaints.

The Tribunal found that the colleague who left the message discriminated against the complainant.

While the employer's initial investigation into the message was not discriminatory, the Tribunal found the employer breached the Code by failing to take adequate steps to quell workplace speculation that the complainant was a terrorist suspect, and by failing to investigate his allegations of historical discrimination.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and harassment based on ethnic origin, the Tribunal addressed case management issues, an amendment to the complaint, and the admissibility of an expert witness.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the complaint to add the ground of creed, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal excluded the Commission's proposed expert witness on racism and Islamophobia, applying the Mohan criteria.

The Tribunal found the proposed evidence was within the adjudicator's knowledge and that the expert had improperly formed conclusions on the ultimate issues to be decided.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Superior Court of Justice, which had allowed a Crown appeal from the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found nothing in the case warranting leave to appeal and denied the application.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentences imposed on four court officers convicted of assaulting a handcuffed and shackled prisoner in a holding cell.

The trial judge had imposed conditional sentences ranging from 45 to 90 days.

The Court of Appeal found the sentences demonstrably unfit, emphasizing that the respondents committed a collective, premeditated, and vicious assault on a defenceless prisoner and attempted to cover it up.

The Court held that such a breach of trust by officers in the justice system requires a sentence emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation, normally calling for a custodial term.

The appeal was allowed and additional custodial terms ranging from 30 to 60 days were imposed.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Easy & The Fifth.

The Board ordered both the Licensee and the Registrar to disclose their witness lists and detailed summaries of witness evidence or statements at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing date.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his sentence for participating in an unprovoked assault on a civilian and attempting to fabricate evidence.

He argued the trial judge failed to adequately consider the impact of imprisonment on his career.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and agreeing with the trial judge that the grave nature of the offence and the appalling breach of trust required a sentence of imprisonment to address denunciation and deterrence.

Following a successful appeal to the Divisional Court that revoked a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, the appellant police officers sought costs against the respondent.

The court applied the principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council, fixing costs on a partial indemnity basis at $7,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and GST.