Lynn Donnelly

The Public Guardian and Trustee held statutory guardianship over an adult and refused an application by the adult's brother to replace it as guardian, finding the brother unsuitable to manage the adult's property and lacking a suitable management plan.

The application judge approved the Public Guardian and Trustee's refusal.

On appeal, the brother challenged the decision on grounds that the application judge failed to consider all evidence and misapplied the applicable test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error, error in principle, or palpable or overriding errors of fact.

The court also rejected the appellant's request to adduce fresh evidence and declined to appoint a criminal lawyer to investigate alleged surveillance.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from his failure to properly investigate a wellness check on two vulnerable women, one of whom was later found deceased in their home.

The officer had driven by the residence but did not exit his vehicle or knock on the door, assuming the house was abandoned.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the officer failed in his common law duty to protect life and safety and lacked a lawful excuse for his lack of diligence.

The union sought an order directing the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to produce its investigation file regarding a fire at Place Mont Roc.

The employer did not oppose production, reserving its right to object to relevance and admissibility.

The OPP agreed to produce the entire file, subject to redactions for law enforcement or third-party interests, estimating a six-month timeline due to volume.

The arbitrator directed the OPP to produce the file and remained seized of any issues relating to production.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer an upcoming summary hearing until his appeal in another proceeding was complete, and objected to the hearing being conducted by teleconference.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting it had previously decided not to defer the application and the pending appeal did not change that determination.

The Tribunal also dismissed the objection to the teleconference format, as the applicant provided no valid reason for his opposition.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct.

The conviction arose from a sarcastic internal report the appellant wrote criticizing an order to conduct a missing person investigation, which he believed was a conflict of interest.

The Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Hearing Officer.

However, the Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct was unreasonable, as the appellant's conduct should have been treated as a performance issue rather than misconduct.

The conviction was revoked.

The parties agreed to a process for the production of certain documents.

The Arbitrator issued a confidentiality order directing that any documents produced be disclosed only to the parties and used solely for the purposes of the instant proceedings.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the scope of a judge's jurisdiction under section 36(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act to direct a police force to enforce a child custody and access order.

The motion judge ordered the Ontario Provincial Police to enforce a custody and access order in place of the Waterloo Regional Police Service due to an inherent conflict of interest arising from the father's membership in the WRPS and allegations that the WRPS had inappropriately intervened to further the father's interests.

The appellants argued the motion judge lacked authority to impose such an obligation and that only the Ontario Civilian Police Commission could determine whether a municipal police force had failed to provide adequate policing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that section 36(2) permits a judge to specify any police force having jurisdiction in the area where the child may be found, and that in exceptional circumstances such as this, a judge may order the OPP to assist where the municipal police force cannot act due to a conflict of interest.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing for his human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex.

After waiting past the usual commencement time and receiving no communication from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.