Mark Wallace

The applicant brought a private prosecution against his wife's employer and her superiors, alleging criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, intimidation, and retaliation.

Following a pre-enquete hearing, the Justice of the Peace refused to issue process on six counts due to insufficient evidence, and the Crown Attorney stayed the remaining count.

The applicant sought certiorari and mandamus to quash the refusal and review the stay.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error by the Justice of the Peace and confirming the Crown Attorney's absolute discretion to stay the charge.

A police officer with 23 years of service pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, breach of trust by a public officer, careless storage of firearms and ammunition, and possession of methamphetamine and oxycodone.

The offences occurred during the execution of his duties when he stole approximately $11,500 from an undercover operation and possessed various controlled substances at his residence and police locker.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months in custody, with the theft and breach of trust charges receiving 17 months concurrent, firearm and ammunition charges receiving 6 months concurrent, methamphetamine possession receiving 9 months concurrent, and oxycodone possession receiving 4 months consecutive.

The court also imposed a 10-year firearms prohibition and ordered a DNA sample.

This criminal trial involved two Ontario Provincial Police officers, Jason Redmond and David Vogelzang, facing charges related to obstruction of justice, breach of trust, and trafficking cannabis, stemming from an undercover operation.

The court acquitted both officers on charges of attempted obstruction of justice and breach of trust concerning a meeting where they discussed a rumour about the undercover officer's identity, finding reasonable doubt regarding their intent to obstruct.

Redmond was found guilty of trafficking cannabis (Count 4, admitted) and knowingly dealing with a forged document (Count 5).

He was acquitted of a second trafficking charge (Count 3, withdrawn) and a breach of trust charge related to the forged document (Count 6), as his actions in creating the document were not connected to his official duties.

The appellant appealed the decision of a Hearing Officer dismissing charges of neglect of duty against three Ottawa Police Service officers.

The charges arose from the officers' investigation of a physical altercation involving the appellant, specifically regarding the failure to photograph the appellant's injuries, failure to review a seized camera, and failure to complete a return to justice form.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law, did not exhibit bias, provided adequate assistance to the unrepresented appellant, and properly assessed the evidence.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's claim of prosecutorial incompetence.

Two Ottawa police officers were charged with assault following an SIU investigation and were issued summonses to attend SIU headquarters in Mississauga for fingerprinting.

The officers brought an application for certiorari to quash the summonses, arguing that the Crown's subsequent election to proceed summarily invalidated the summonses, that the travel requirement breached procedural fairness, and that it constituted an unreasonable search under section 8 of the Charter.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown's election did not retroactively invalidate the Justice of the Peace's jurisdiction, the travel requirement was a reasonable policy to ensure SIU independence and operational readiness, and the inconvenience of travel did not render the fingerprinting an unreasonable search.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and a penalty of forfeiture of 12 days' pay for using unnecessary force during an arrest.

The officer argued that the hearing officer applied the wrong standard of proof, misapprehended the evidence regarding knee strikes, and erred in assessing the necessity of the force used.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the balance of probabilities standard, reasonably concluded that the knee strikes constituted unnecessary force, and imposed a reasonable penalty consistent with similar cases.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his conviction for insubordination arising from an off-duty traffic stop.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in her definition of a 'traffic stop' and in her assessment of the evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's definition of a traffic stop was reasonable and that her conclusion that the appellant's actions constituted an off-duty traffic stop in violation of police policy was supported by the evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission previously found the respondent police officer guilty of unlawful exercise of authority and insubordination related to an unlawful arrest and strip search.

In this penalty decision, the Commission considered the officer's employment history, prior disciplinary record, and the seriousness of the misconduct.

Accepting the joint submission of the respondents, the Commission ordered the officer to forfeit 8 days or 64 hours of pay.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision acquitting a police officer of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and insubordination.

The officer had arrested the appellant for allegedly breaching release conditions and conducted a strip search behind a convenience store.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made significant errors of law and fact, failed to provide adequate reasons, and ignored material evidence.

The Commission revoked the acquittals and substituted findings of guilt on both charges, concluding the arrest lacked reasonable grounds and the strip search violated police policy.

The applicants sought a stay of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry and a Divisional Court decision pending an application for leave to appeal.

The Commissioner had ruled he had jurisdiction to hear evidence from two witnesses regarding alleged police failure to respond to a sexual assault complaint.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm to the applicants' reputation if the evidence was heard publicly before the appeal, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The motion for a stay was granted and the leave application expedited.