Harry G. Black

Police officers Paul Fyke and Jeffrey Smith were jointly charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation with Mario Maurice Baptiste Jr. during an attempted arrest for theft.

The court found that Constable Smith's initial arrest for theft lacked reasonable and probable grounds, making his use of force unlawful.

However, Constable Fyke's subsequent involvement was justified as he had reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Baptiste for assaulting a peace officer or resisting arrest.

The court acquitted Constable Fyke, finding the Crown failed to prove his force was excessive.

Constable Smith was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm but found guilty of the lesser included offence of assault, as the Crown failed to prove his force caused the specific bodily harm alleged.

The applicant, a police sergeant, sought a stay of criminal proceedings for assault and assault with a weapon, alleging abuse of process and violations of his Charter rights (ss. 7, 10(b), 15).

He argued that the police improperly re-investigated him after initially taking criminal charges "off the table" and compelling a statement under the Police Services Act, and that his solicitor-client consultation was improperly videotaped.

The court dismissed the application, finding no bad faith or ulterior motive in the re-investigation, that the compelled statement was inadmissible at trial, and that the inadvertent video recording without audio did not breach his Charter rights or privilege, thus not warranting a stay.

The appellant, a police officer, pleaded guilty to assaulting a handcuffed suspect and falsifying his notes and use of force report.

He was sentenced to 30 days intermittent custody.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred by treating the use of a taser and the false reports as aggravating factors, and by failing to adequately consider the collateral consequence of his inevitable job loss.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding that the sentence was not manifestly unreasonable given the serious breach of trust.

This criminal trial concerned an assault charge against a police officer, Constable Scott Douglas, for an incident involving the arrest of Mr. Trevaughn Titus.

The defence relied on section 25 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the officer acted on reasonable grounds and used necessary force during the arrest for a Trespass to Property Act violation.

The court found that the officer had a credible basis for reasonable grounds to arrest and that the single distractionary punch delivered was a reasonable and necessary use of force in the circumstances, consistent with police training.

The officer was found not guilty.

Two police officers were charged with assault and assault with a weapon following the arrest of a fleeing suspect.

The suspect had engaged in a high-speed pursuit and attempted to hide under a barbecue.

The officers used a Taser and multiple leg strikes to subdue him.

The court found that while the initial use of force was justified under s. 25 of the Criminal Code due to the dangerous and dynamic circumstances, the final leg strikes delivered after the suspect was immobilized and pulled out from under the barbecue were gratuitous and constituted unjustified assaults.

Both officers were found guilty of assault level one.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of a subsequent sexual relationship with the complainant.

The accused argued the evidence was necessary to provide context for his narrative that the relationship was consensual from the outset, while the Crown opposed it as violating the twin-myth prohibitions.

The court granted the application in part, allowing evidence of the fact and nature of the subsequent sexual relationship to be admitted to assess credibility and context, but excluding details of specific sexual encounters.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a Stage 1 application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of a post-incident sexual relationship with the complainant.

The accused argued the evidence was necessary to contradict the complainant's narrative of their subsequent relationship and to support his defence that the initial encounter was the start of a consensual, months-long relationship.

The court found the proposed evidence was capable of being admissible as it did not rely on prohibited twin-myth reasoning and was relevant to the complainant's credibility and the narrative of the relationship.

The application was granted, moving the matter to a Stage 2 hearing.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay Police Services Act misconduct proceedings against two police officers for abuse of process due to delay.

The proceedings arose from an incident over eight years prior, and the Hearing Officer found the delay, largely attributable to the prosecution, was inexcusable and caused significant prejudice to the officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Blencoe test for abuse of process.

The Commission concluded the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

A police officer employed with the City of Kawartha Lakes Police Service pleaded guilty to breach of trust contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code.

The officer, who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and developed an opioid addiction following traumatic incidents during his policing career, stole drugs from an evidence locker and siphoned prescription pills from a pharmacy investigation.

His criminal conduct resulted in eight active drug prosecutions being stayed.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional discharge and a suspended sentence, finding that while the officer's addiction and PTSD constituted exceptional mitigating circumstances, a jail sentence was warranted.

However, the court imposed a conditional sentence order to be served in the community rather than incarceration, recognizing the officer's rehabilitation efforts and the need to balance denunciation and deterrence with individualized sentencing principles.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction for assault and the conditional discharge imposed after he forcibly removed a motorist from a car.

The appellant claimed the motorist assaulted him by slamming a car door on his knee, justifying the arrest.

The trial judge rejected this account, finding no lawful authority for the appellant's actions and no assault by the motorist.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessment, and finding no legal errors or misapprehension of evidence in the conviction or sentence.

The defendants were charged with sexual assault.

The Crown sought to admit expert toxicologist evidence regarding the effects of "date rape" drugs, consistent with the complainant's symptoms of incapacitation, despite no direct evidence of drug administration.

The defence objected, arguing irrelevance due to the absence of a drug charge and late disclosure of new testimonial details.

The court ruled the expert evidence admissible, finding it relevant to the issue of consent and the complainant's incapacitation, even without knowing the exact drug or its administration method.

The court noted that late disclosure, if remedied by adjournment, affects weight rather than admissibility.

The Applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board, which declined to extend the time for service of a Notice of Disciplinary Hearing on two police officers beyond the six-month period under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached procedural fairness by not providing the Applicants with the officers' submissions or an opportunity to respond.

The Court also found the Board's decision unreasonable for failing to consider the causes of delay holistically.

The Board's decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

The Appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to deliver a Notice of Appeal regarding a police discipline matter.

The Respondent officer argued the appeal was out of time under the Commission's Rules.

The Commission found that the Appellant had formed an intention to appeal within the relevant time period and that the justice of the case required an extension.

The motion was granted, allowing the Notice of Appeal to be filed nunc pro tunc.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by appearing to reverse the burden of proof, requiring the officer to prove he had reasonable and probable grounds.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to adequately analyze the officer's subjective belief and whether there was good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

Given the excessive delay of over five years, the Commission revoked the finding of misconduct rather than remitting the matter for a new hearing.

The Toronto Police Service and a police officer sought access to youth records of a young person (L.D.) who was a witness and complainant in a police disciplinary hearing.

The officer was alleged to have assaulted L.D. while in police custody.

The court considered whether access to L.D.'s youth records was permitted under sections 119(1)(s) and 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a valid or valid and substantial interest in the records, and that permitting access would undermine the proper administration of justice under both the YCJA and the Police Services Act.

The application was dismissed.

Constable Mulholland appealed the penalty imposed by a Hearing Officer for multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, insubordination, discreditable conduct, and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a demotion with conditions, which the appellant argued was harsh and excessive given his diagnoses of PTSD and substance abuse.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the penalty factors, including the seriousness of the multiple acts of misconduct and the mitigating medical evidence, and that the penalty did not violate the duty to accommodate.

The Crown brought a pre‑trial application seeking admission of a photograph allegedly depicting a police officer assaulting a protester during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The image had been anonymously uploaded to a website and lacked metadata, raising concerns about provenance and possible manipulation.

Competing expert evidence addressed whether the photograph had been altered, but neither expert could confirm its authenticity or trace its origin.

Applying the established criteria for authenticating photographic evidence, the court held the Crown failed to establish fairness and absence of manipulation.

As a result, the photograph was not authenticated and was ruled inadmissible at trial.

The appellant police officer sought to introduce new medical evidence and internal correspondence regarding his post-disposition work performance on his appeal of a disciplinary demotion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and dismissed the motion.

The Commission found that the medical evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the penalty hearing, and that post-disposition work performance was not relevant where the penalty imposed was demotion rather than dismissal.

The Crown brought a motion seeking to limit defence cross‑examination of a non‑accused witness regarding prior discreditable conduct and the underlying facts of home invasion charges for which the witness had been acquitted.

The defence opposed the limitation and sought an order preventing the witness from referring to the acquittal.

The court reviewed the broad right of an accused to cross‑examine ordinary witnesses as part of the right to make full answer and defence.

Distinguishing authorities dealing with cross‑examination of an accused, the court held that limitations applicable to accused persons do not apply to ordinary witnesses.

Balancing probative value against potential prejudice, the court permitted cross‑examination on the underlying facts of the acquitted charges and declined to prohibit the witness from mentioning the acquittal if it arose naturally.

The Crown sought to qualify an oral maxillofacial surgeon to provide expert opinion evidence on the diagnosis, mechanism, causation, direction of force, and magnitude of force of the complainant's jaw fractures in an aggravated assault trial.

Following a voir dire, the court qualified the doctor to opine on the diagnosis and mechanism of the injuries based on his extensive clinical experience.

However, applying the Mohan and Abbey frameworks, the court held the doctor was not properly qualified to opine on causation, direction, or magnitude of force, as he lacked specialized training, research, or prior qualification in those specific forensic areas.