George Bonn

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages for injuries sustained at a speedway, the parties could not agree on the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $269,371, while the defendant proposed $150,000.

The court considered factors including the principle of proportionality, the defendant's unreasonable refusal to mediate, and the plaintiff's extensive use of jury focus groups.

The court adjusted the plaintiff's claimed hourly rates and time spent, but penalized the defendant for refusing to mediate, ultimately fixing costs at $210,000 plus taxes.

The appellant, a civilian, and the respondent, a police sergeant, both appealed a disciplinary decision.

The sergeant had been found guilty of neglect of duty for denying the civilian his right to counsel for approximately 90 minutes after holding him incommunicado for over 27 hours due to officer safety concerns during a raid.

The Commission upheld the finding of misconduct, agreeing that the Charter violation began when the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed the civilian's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter violation, and substituted a penalty of reduction in rank for six months.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary decision finding the respondent police sergeant guilty of neglect of duty for denying the appellant his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The respondent had held the appellant incommunicado for over 27 hours due to officer safety concerns during a raid on a dangerous crime family's property.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the Charter breach began only after the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed the appellant's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter breach, and increased the penalty to a reduction in rank for six months.

The appellant, Fred Parker, and the respondent, Sergeant Randy Blakely, both appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding Sergeant Blakely guilty of neglect of duty for denying Mr. Parker his right to counsel for approximately 90 minutes.

Mr. Parker was held incommunicado for over 27 hours following his arrest due to officer safety concerns during a related police raid.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the Charter breach began only when the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed Mr. Parker's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter violation, and substituted a penalty of reduction in rank for six months.

The applicant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police misconduct.

The Commission denied leave to appeal the interlocutory decision refusing to amend the charge, finding jurisdiction only extends to final orders.

The Commission found no leave was required to appeal the misconduct finding, as it proceeds as of right.

Finally, the Commission established a three-part test for granting a complainant leave to appeal a penalty decision under s. 70(4) of the Police Services Act, and granted leave on the basis that the underlying Charter breaches were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The applicant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police discipline proceedings against the respondent officer.

The Commission dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the refusal to amend the charge, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals of interlocutory orders.

The Commission found that leave was not required to appeal the misconduct finding, as it could be appealed as of right.

Finally, the Commission granted leave to appeal the penalty decision (a reprimand), establishing a three-part test for granting leave under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act and finding that the Charter issues raised were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The applicant complainant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police discipline proceedings against the respondent officer.

The Commission held it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an interlocutory decision refusing to amend the notice of charge.

It further held that the applicant's appeal of the misconduct finding did not require leave, as it proceeded as of right under s. 70(3) of the Police Services Act.

Finally, the Commission established a three-part test for granting leave to appeal a penalty decision under s. 70(4) and granted leave, finding that the appropriate penalty for breaches of fundamental Charter rights is a matter of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order permitting the plaintiff to video-record a defence psychiatric examination.

The motions judge had allowed the recording because the defence doctor refused to allow the plaintiff to take notes or record the examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision under Rule 62.02(4)(a) and that the matter was not of general importance under Rule 62.02(4)(b), as the Court of Appeal had already established the legal principles in Bellamy v. Johnson.