Ian Johnstone

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of decisions extending the time to bring disciplinary charges against him, suspending him without pay, and refusing to recuse the Hearing Officer.

The Divisional Court found the extension decision reasonable but held that applying amended suspension provisions mid-proceeding was unfair, reinstating his pay.

The court also removed the Hearing Officer due to a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the protracted procedural history.

The Durham Regional Police Service (Applicant) sought to prohibit the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (Commission) from disclosing two workplace investigation reports (Shearer Reports), claiming they were privileged.

The Commission, along with the Durham Regional Police Service Association (Intervenor), opposed these restrictions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Shearer Report 1 was not privileged, and while Shearer Report 2's privilege was uncertain (as it was not produced for review), any privilege over either report had been waived or lost due to prior disclosures.

The court ordered the reports to be produced to the Commission without restriction, emphasizing the public interest in disclosure to protect employees from harassment and a toxic workplace, and noting the Commission's statutory obligations of confidentiality.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty physical altercation with his estranged wife.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the OCPC reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer properly admitted hearsay evidence, correctly applied the test for discreditable conduct, and imposed a penalty within the appropriate range.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision ordering his dismissal for discreditable conduct and insubordination, including an impaired driving incident while on duty.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding his PTSD and alcohol addiction, and argued the hearing officer erred by proceeding in his absence and failing to properly weigh his mental health issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence as it could have been obtained with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding the hearing officer reasonably weighed the disposition factors and that the seriousness of the misconduct justified dismissal despite the appellant's mental health conditions.

The Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission directing the Chief of Police to withdraw disciplinary charges against a police officer.

The Commission found that the Chief failed to comply with the mandatory investigation and reporting requirements under section 76 of the Police Services Act before initiating a disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission did not breach procedural fairness, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the Commission's decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding vacation deductions for a police officer on a gradual return to work program.

The officer worked half-shifts and received WSIB benefits for the remainder.

When taking vacation, the employer deducted full days from his vacation bank.

The arbitrator found this did not violate the collective agreement, as the officer received his full vacation entitlement and WSIB benefits without losing any benefits.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after she pled guilty to insubordination and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The charges arose from unauthorized CPIC searches and the disclosure of confidential police information to a known drug dealer.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by dismissing motions for abuse of process, a fact finder, and an adjournment, and by failing to give sufficient weight to expert evidence regarding her alcoholism.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no errors in the Hearing Officer's procedural rulings or his weighing of the expert evidence.

The Commission concluded that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct and dismissed the appeal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the status of its interim order appointing an Administrator to oversee the Durham Regional Police Service and the Durham Regional Police Services Board.

Finding that a crisis of confidence and fear of reprisal continued to constitute an emergency within the Service, the Commission extended the Administrator's appointment until December 31, 2020, to ensure the ongoing investigation could be completed without interference.

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.

The appellants appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property tax assessments of their 52.1-acre farm property, arguing the Class 2 farmland rate per acre applied by MPAC was too high.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's classification of 36.1 acres as Class 2 farmland but adjusted the current value based on comparable sales and farm size adjustments.

The Board reduced the assessment from $610,000 (2017) and $547,000 (2018-2019) to $520,000 for all three taxation years.

The Board found no further reduction was necessary for equitable assessment purposes.

The appellants appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property tax assessments of their 50-acre farm property, arguing that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) applied an excessive rate per acre and incorrectly classified the land as Class 2 instead of Class 3.

The Assessment Review Board qualified MPAC's assessors as expert witnesses and accepted their evidence that the property consisted of 49.5 acres of Class 2 farmland.

After reviewing comparable sales and applying adjustments for farm size and market conditions, the Board determined the current value of the property to be $642,000, reducing the assessments from $760,000 (2017) and $701,000 (2018-2019).

The Board found no further reduction was warranted for equitable assessment purposes.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for their 100.58-acre farm property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

They argued the rate per acre applied by MPAC was too high and that a portion of the property should be classified as Class 3 rather than Class 2 farmland.

The Board preferred MPAC's expert evidence regarding the land classification but adjusted the current value based on comparable sales and farm size adjustments.

The Board reduced the assessments for all three years but found no further reduction was necessary for equitable assessment purposes.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act misconduct charges against two officers due to delay.

The Hearing Officer had found the delay amounted to an abuse of process under the Blencoe framework.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the matter raised issues of significant importance to the policing profession and the community, particularly regarding the role of a public complainant's interests in a Blencoe analysis and the impact of parallel criminal proceedings on administrative delay.

The applicant police service sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on a police officer from an 18-month demotion to a 40-hour forfeiture.

The Commission had found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the officer twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and by failing to ensure consistency of disposition with a comparator case.

The Divisional Court held that the Commission's decision was unreasonable, as it misapplied the Kienapple principle by failing to consider the lack of legal nexus between the offences, and misapprehended the facts of the comparator case.

The Commission's decision was set aside and the Hearing Officer's penalty was restored.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 50-acre vacant farm land for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $631,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $500,000 based on the property's inferior soil and terrain compared to MPAC's comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable properties were superior to the subject property and accepted one of the appellants' comparable sales as a better indicator of value.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $550,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 52.92-acre farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $787,000 for 2017 and $724,000 for 2018, while the appellants argued the value should be $690,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales presented by both parties, focusing on farmer-to-farmer sales within a year of the valuation date.

The Board determined the median value of the most comparable sales was $13,218 per tillable acre, resulting in a current value of $699,000 for both taxation years.

The appeal was allowed in part and the assessments were reduced accordingly.

The appellants appealed the MPAC property tax assessments for their 50-acre farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $694,000 for 2017 and $686,000 for 2018, while the appellants argued for a value of $520,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales presented by both parties, adjusting for time and focusing on tillable acreage.

The Board concluded that the correct current value of the property was $665,000 for both taxation years and reduced the assessments accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,000,000 for 2017 and $971,000 for 2018, while the appellants argued for a value of $950,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales presented by both parties and determined that valuing the property based on tillable acreage was the most appropriate method.

Applying the median time-adjusted value per tillable acre from four comparable sales, the Board reduced the current value to $959,000 for both taxation years.

The appellants appealed the MPAC property tax assessments for their 50-acre farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $828,000 for 2017 and $686,000 for 2018, while the appellants argued the current value was $550,000.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated comparable sales evidence from both parties, applying a time adjustment factor to account for a rising market.

The Board determined the median value of the most comparable sales was $13,218 per tillable acre.

Consequently, the Board reduced the current value of the subject property to $661,000 for both the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of their 97.18-acre farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,191,000 for 2017 and $1,026,000 for 2018, while the appellants argued for a value of $860,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable farm sales, focusing on tillable acreage and soil classes, and determined that the correct current value was $1,007,000 for both taxation years.

The Board ordered the assessments reduced accordingly.