Martin J. Doane

Two police officers brought a civil action against their police services board, chief, deputy chief, and another officer, alleging unfair treatment, negligent investigation, and other torts arising from disciplinary actions taken against them.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the courts lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that the Police Services Act and the applicable collective agreement form a complete code for police discipline, precluding civil actions for disputes whose essential character relates to discipline.

The appellants challenged Ontario legislation repealing agricultural labour protections and excluding agricultural workers from the statutory labour relations regime.

The majority held that, in the labour relations context, freedom of association under s. 2(d) may impose a positive obligation where exclusion from protective legislation substantially interferes with the ability of a vulnerable group to organize.

The Court found that the exclusion of agricultural workers from the LRA substantially impeded their capacity to form and maintain employee associations and created a chilling effect on associational activity.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 because the wholesale exclusion was overly broad and failed minimum impairment.

The appeal was allowed and the declarations of invalidity were suspended for 18 months.

The appellant landlords appealed a Board of Inquiry decision finding that their use of rent-to-income ratios to screen prospective tenants constituted constructive discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that the sole use of such criteria disproportionately excluded protected groups and was not a bona fide requirement.

However, the Court amended the Board's forward-looking prohibition against using income criteria, noting that recent amendments to the Code and O. Reg. 290/98 now expressly permit landlords to use income information in specific ways.

Retired police officers, through their representative corporation, appealed the dismissal of a Rule 22 motion claiming an interest in approximately $6 million in excess pension funds arising after legislative amendments moved supplementary early retirement benefits into the basic OMERS plan.

The appeal advanced theories based on deferred wages, trust, fiduciary obligations, unjust enrichment, partial wind-up, and statutory restrictions on surplus use.

The Court of Appeal substantially adopted the motion judge’s reasoning and held that the supplementary agreement did not create a separate pension plan and that retirees under a defined benefit plan had no inherent entitlement to the excess funds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services held a hearing into the conduct of the members of the Wallaceburg Police Services Board.

The Board had laid off three members of the police service (two cadets and one civilian communicator) to meet budget cuts, without obtaining the Commission's consent under section 40 of the Police Services Act.

The Commission found that the layoffs constituted a reduction in the size of the force, requiring consent, and that the Board's reliance on the probationary termination provisions in section 44 was improper.

The Commission concluded that the Board members' actions constituted misconduct and a failure to perform their duties in a satisfactory manner.

The four current members of the Board were removed from their positions.

The Smiths Falls Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to terminate a fourth-class constable to reduce the size of the police force.

The Board argued the officer was hired as a temporary replacement and was no longer needed.

The Smiths Falls Police Association opposed the termination, arguing the force was already understaffed and the community suffered from a high crime rate and excessive officer overtime.

The Commission found the officer was a permanent employee and denied consent for the termination, concluding the Board failed to demonstrate that the reduction would not impair the provision of adequate and effective police services in the municipality.