Lawrence Gridin

The applicants sought judicial review of administrative decisions dismissing disciplinary charges against two police officers for lack of jurisdiction.

The hearing officers and the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the six-month statutory deadline under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act for serving a notice of hearing had expired.

The applicants argued that the deadline should be paused during a review by the Complaints Director.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that the administrative decision-makers reasonably interpreted the plain wording of the statute, which contained no exception for a Director's review.

The appellant filed a public complaint regarding a police officer's conduct during a traffic stop.

After the Chief of Police concluded the misconduct was not serious enough to warrant a hearing, the appellant requested a review by the Independent Police Review Director under section 71 of the Police Services Act.

The Director directed the Chief to serve a Notice of Hearing but explicitly instructed the Chief not to apply to the Board for a finding that the delay was reasonable under section 83(17), despite more than six months having passed.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges for noncompliance with section 83(17).

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that section 83(17) applies to the pre-charge period including a section 71 review, and failure to obtain the Board's opinion on the reasonableness of the delay resulted in a loss of jurisdiction.

The accused, a police officer charged with breach of trust and fabricating evidence, brought a motion to compel the Crown to call a fellow officer as a witness.

The Crown refused to call the officer, citing concerns about his reliability due to inconsistencies in his statements.

The court declined to order the Crown to call the witness, affirming the Crown's discretion.

However, given the witness's materiality and allegations that his statement was improperly influenced by an investigating detective, the court exercised its exceptional discretion to call the officer as the court's own witness, permitting both parties to cross-examine him with certain restrictions.

A York Regional Police officer, Jordan Nesbitt, was charged with breach of trust, fabricating evidence, and attempting to obstruct justice following a vehicle search.

The Crown alleged he planted cocaine and falsified reports to justify an unlawful search.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, citing issues with witness credibility, the integrity of the scene, and plausible alternative explanations for the presence of substances.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The public complainant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing misconduct charges against a police officer due to noncompliance with the six-month delay provision in s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent officer objected to the Independent Police Review Director participating in the leave application.

The Commission held that the Director has standing to participate in pre-hearing steps, including leave applications.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the interplay between the Director's oversight powers and the Police Services Board's obligations regarding delay raises issues of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The Commission previously revoked a Hearing Officer's finding that the respondent officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct for pointing a firearm at the public complainants, substituting a finding of guilt.

The Commission solicited submissions on whether it was in the public interest to vary the penalty at this stage.

Given that the incident occurred over a decade ago and the proceedings had been subject to excessive delay, the Commission determined it was not in the public interest to order a new penalty hearing or to vary the penalty itself.

The original penalty remained unchanged.

Two police officers appealed findings of misconduct for unlawfully arresting two Black youths for assaulting police, and one officer appealed a finding of excessive force for punching a third youth.

The public complainants cross-appealed the finding that the officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct for pointing his firearm at them.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in his analysis of arrest powers under the Criminal Code but substituted its own finding of misconduct for the unlawful arrests.

The Commission confirmed the finding of excessive force for the punch.

Finally, the Commission revoked the not guilty finding regarding the firearm, finding the Hearing Officer erred by failing to consider the Use of Force Regulation and improperly relying on his own experience, and substituted a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of insubordination for conducting an unauthorized CPIC query on his wife's vehicle.

He argued the query was part of an investigation into civilian dispatchers and that the Hearing Officer denied him procedural fairness by refusing disclosure of notes from a 2015 conversation regarding a similar complaint.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the 2015 notes were irrelevant to whether the 2018 query was for official police business.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the query was for personal reasons as reasonable.

The media applicants sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision in a police disciplinary hearing to impose a publication ban on a video exhibit and subsequently allow the exhibit to be withdrawn from the record.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to apply the proper Dagenais-Mentuck test before granting the ban and by allowing the exhibit to be withdrawn when the media sought to challenge it.

The Court set aside the publication ban and the withdrawal order, directing that the video be made public with the victim's name redacted.

The Court also ordered the police service to provide contemporaneous access to exhibits during future hearings in accordance with the open court principle.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm after mistakenly entering the wrong apartment during a domestic assault call and physically detaining the occupant.

The Crown conceded the detention was lawful but argued the manner and force used were unreasonable.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable and accepted the officer's account that the force used was minimal and tailored to the volatile circumstances.

The court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force was reasonably unnecessary under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code, and the charge was dismissed.

The applicant church sought $75,000 in costs after being unsuccessful on an urgent application for an interim injunction to stay COVID-19 restrictions on in-person religious services.

The church argued costs were warranted because the case raised a novel issue of significant public importance.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the injunction application focused on the narrow interests of the church rather than broad public interest, and turned on settled legal principles rather than novel issues.

No costs were awarded to either party for the injunction application.

Sean Osborne, a police officer, pleaded guilty to assault committed while on duty.

The assault involved stepping on a restrained young person's head/neck area and twice kicking him in the chest after arrest.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the Defence sought a discharge.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting that police officers are held to a higher standard due to their position of trust.

Despite significant mitigating factors, including PTSD and extensive community contributions, the court found that a discharge would be contrary to public interest.

A conviction was deemed necessary to convey the seriousness of the offence and breach of public trust.

The court imposed a suspended sentence and 12 months probation with statutory terms.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence.

The misconduct related to his failure to report the kidnapping of an acquaintance and his unauthorized use of a police database to provide information to the victim's brother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's decisions to allow video testimony, admit a criminal trial transcript, refuse a stay for delay, and impose the penalty of dismissal.

The applicant church sought an interim injunction to exempt it from O. Reg. 82/20, which restricted religious gatherings to a maximum of ten people in regions designated as Stage 1 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The church argued the regulation infringed its freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the church established a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm.

However, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the public interest in protecting health and preventing the spread of COVID-19 outweighed the temporary restriction on the church's religious freedom.

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

The Peel Regional Police Service applied for a stay of a disclosure order pending an application for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The disclosure order required the Crown to provide the investigative files of a police officer, who was charged with unrelated offences, to the accused as first-party disclosure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that there was a serious question to be determined, the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the appeal became moot, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The stay was granted, subject to terms regarding its expiration.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of misconduct (discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence) and ordering his dismissal.

The misconduct related to his failure to report two separate kidnappings, conducting unauthorized CPIC queries, and disclosing confidential information.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the Hearing Officer's decisions regarding delay, admission of video link and transcript evidence, credibility assessments, or the finding that his actions constituted discreditable conduct.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed its second finding (unsubstantiated) regarding a police misconduct complaint by the Stanleys and ordered a third investigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the quashing of the OIPRD's second decision, but on the ground that the OIPRD was functus officio and lacked statutory or common law authority to reconsider its initial substantiated finding.

The Court set aside the Divisional Court's order for a third investigation, restoring the OIPRD's original decision to refer the matter for a disciplinary hearing, while noting that the OIPRD could now apply its newly amended rules for reconsideration.

The respondent Registrar successfully resisted an application for judicial review regarding the cannabis retail lottery and sought costs.

The applicants argued that costs should not be awarded to a decision-maker that successfully resists judicial review, relying on an alleged overriding principle.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, noting that in Ontario, costs are awarded to administrative tribunals acting in an adversarial role to defend their decisions.

The court awarded the Registrar costs of the stay motion and the application, fixing the quantum at $40,000.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) which found their complaints against a police officer unsubstantiated.

The Director had initially found evidence of misconduct and referred the matter for adjudication, but later reopened the investigation and reversed his decision after undisclosed communications with the police service.

The Divisional Court found that these undisclosed communications compromised the independence of the Director and breached procedural fairness.

The court quashed the Director's decision and remitted the matter for a fresh investigation by a different investigator.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and sought leave to appeal his sentence of 14 months' imprisonment and two years' probation.

The conviction arose from a second trial following a mistrial on a charge of aggravated assault of Tim Runge.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in leaving assault causing bodily harm as an included offence to the jury, contending that the uncontested expert evidence of a serious and permanent brain injury established the elements of aggravated assault as a matter of law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly left the included offence with the jury as there was an air of reality to it, and that defence counsel had requested the instruction.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings regarding aggravating factors.