Ian Solomon

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her complaint against the City of Toronto as an abuse of process, and against her union and its counsel for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant had previously settled her grievance and human rights complaint with the City but later filed a new complaint, alleging she signed the settlement under duress from her union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's decision was reasonable and correct, as the settlement was binding and the allegations of duress did not invalidate it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed at a preliminary hearing on the basis that the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement and a Final Release and Indemnity regarding her termination.

The applicant argued she signed under duress and did not understand the documents.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or lack of understanding, noting she received a severance package exceeding statutory minimums and had union representation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer as an abuse of process, and dismissed the application against the union and its counsel as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a police officer, alleged that a negative performance evaluation he received in 2006 was a reprisal for reporting a subordinate's sexual harassment complaint.

He further alleged that the respondent's failure to remove the evaluation from his personnel file in 2011, as agreed during a grievance settlement, constituted an ongoing reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.

It found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the failure to remove the evaluation was intentional or connected to his human rights complaint.

The Tribunal also found that the 2006 evaluation was a discrete incident, not a continuing contravention, and dismissed that portion of the application for delay.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding a one-year demotion in rank for discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The appellant argued the penalty was unreasonable because it gave too much weight to a 10-year-old disciplinary record and failed to consider the economic impact on his pension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer reasonably considered the gap in the disciplinary record and that the pension issue was inappropriately raised for the first time on appeal without an evidentiary record.

The applicant, a firefighter, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming that the strict application of the collective agreement prevented him from achieving the rank of Captain in the Operations Division.

Due to a disability, the applicant had transferred to the Training Division in 2000.

Under the collective agreement, candidates for Captain in Operations required two years of recent service in Operations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not forced to transfer out of Operations and ought to have reasonably known or inquired about his potential to remain in Operations indefinitely while being accommodated.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the applications.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the substance of the application had been dealt with in another proceeding or amounted to an abuse of process.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision imposing a demotion in rank for assisting another officer in cheating on three separate promotional examinations using electronic communication equipment.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended the evidence regarding her motivation, failed to properly weigh case law, and imposed a harsh and excessive penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, transparent, and fell within the acceptable range of outcomes for the serious misconduct committed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing six days before it was scheduled to begin, citing his counsel's heavy workload and lack of preparation.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a heavy workload does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance under its Practice Direction to justify a late adjournment request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences, claiming he was wrongly terminated for failing to complete a rehabilitation program.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through two last chance agreements containing full and final releases.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise within 14 days whether he wishes to make oral submissions on the dismissal request, failing which the matter will be decided on the written record.

The appellant, a public complainant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for alleged unauthorized database searches.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the appellant's initial e-mail complaint was unsigned, failing to meet the mandatory requirements of s. 57(2) of the Police Services Act, and that the officer had already been informally disciplined for the conduct.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by considering expunged disciplinary records and raised new grounds including issue estoppel.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded the complaint was invalid for lack of a signature and properly considered oral testimony regarding the prior discipline.

The Commission also held it lacked jurisdiction to hear new grounds of appeal filed beyond the statutory time limit.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to respond to a status inquiry letter.

The applicant submitted that he never received the letter and had no intention of abandoning his application, which had been deferred pending grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant successfully rebutted the presumption of delivery and that the failure to respond was through no fault of his own.

The applicant applied for judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the contracting out of a 'locating function' previously performed by an Inspector.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the locating function constituted 'work' under the collective agreement.

The court held that the standard of review for the arbitrator's remedy was reasonableness.

The arbitrator's decision to award damages as an incentive for compliance, calculated based on the value of the work, was deemed reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from sergeant to first-class constable for a minimum of one year, imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of discreditable conduct for misappropriating funds from a unit bank account.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence regarding his repayment efforts, failed to consider his medical and personal circumstances, and imposed a disproportionate penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed these grounds, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable and the penalty within the acceptable range.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal in part to vary the wording of the penalty, finding that making reinstatement conditional on a Unit Commander's recommendation was problematic and lacked clear standards.

The penalty was varied to allow the appellant to participate in the normal promotional process after the one-year demotion.

The Toronto Police Service brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by a police officer for failing to file within the 30-day limitation period under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant's counsel acknowledged the delay and requested an extension.

The Commission held that the Act does not permit extensions of time for appeals, as the discretion to do so was expressly removed by 1997 amendments.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a disciplinary penalty on the basis that the notice of appeal was filed 11 days after the 30-day statutory deadline.

The appellant did not oppose the motion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that section 70(1) of the Police Services Act imposes a strict 30-day time limit and that the 1997 amendments to the Act removed the Commission's discretion to extend the time for filing appeals.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for insubordination after conducting CPIC searches on his wife's vehicle at her request.

The Toronto Police Service cross-appealed the Commission's decision to reduce the officer's penalty from a seven-day to a three-day forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the CPIC searches were not exclusively for police business and that the Hearing Officer implicitly rejected the officer's defence of honest belief.

The Court also upheld the Commission's interpretation of the Police Services Act, confirming that prior informal discipline must be expunged after two years and cannot be considered in sentencing unless a new finding of misconduct is proven within that period.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and the resulting penalty of a seven-day forfeiture.

The officer had conducted unauthorized CPIC inquiries on his wife and her vehicle for personal reasons, specifically to determine if his ex-wife had improperly searched for their new address.

The Commission upheld the finding of guilt, confirming that CPIC must be used exclusively for police business and that the officer's personal motivations did not justify the searches.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to a three-day forfeiture, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in law by considering prior informal discipline that should have been expunged from the officer's record under section 64(16) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and penalty for the disciplinary offence of being absent without leave.

On Christmas Day, the appellant's supervisor gave him permission to remain at home on standby instead of reporting for his scheduled shift.

The Hearing Officer convicted the appellant, finding that the supervisor lacked authority to grant such leave and the appellant should have known this.

The Commission allowed the appeal and substituted an acquittal, holding that the appellant was entitled to rely on his supervisor's explicit permission as a reasonable excuse for his absence, regardless of whether the supervisor actually possessed the formal authority to grant it.