Matthew Peachey

The applicant sought judicial review of four Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions that denied his appeals and reconsideration requests regarding the impoundment of his vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded twice after the applicant drove while his license was suspended for impaired driving convictions.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness and held that the Tribunal's decisions, including its findings on exceptional hardship and the non-retroactive effect of a criminal driving prohibition stay, were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, an OPP Sergeant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding findings of misconduct for writing a letter to a newspaper criticizing a helicopter relocation.

The applicant argued the Hearing Officer was biased and erred in denying a disclosure motion, which prevented him from establishing a whistleblower defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and agreeing with the Commission that the whistleblower defence failed because the applicant did not first raise his concerns internally with his chain of command.

The applicant, an off-duty police officer, spoke at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization despite being ordered not to attend or speak.

He was convicted of insubordination and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction but upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under s. 49 of the Police Services Act.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the Commission's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider s. 80(2) of the Act, which requires a connection between off-duty conduct and the occupational requirements or reputation of the police force.

Given the Commission's findings on the discreditable conduct charge, the court concluded the s. 80(2) test could not be met and revoked the insubordination conviction.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding a finding of misconduct for the unlawful arrest of a videographer during the G20 summit.

The applicant argued the Commission erred in its standard of review and that the Hearing Officer's reasons were inadequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the reasons were adequate for appellate review and that the finding of misconduct was reasonable given the lack of good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

The self-represented applicant appeared before the court to address his conduct in advancing multiple applications regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother.

During the hearing, the applicant was belligerent, disrespectful, and repeatedly interrupted the judge, leading to a finding of contempt in the face of the court.

The court sentenced the applicant to three days of time served.

Additionally, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court ordered that the applicant be prohibited from commencing further proceedings related to the 2006 incident without prior judicial permission.

The court also dismissed the applicant's latest application under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The respondent Commission brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the applicant's application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought to challenge a 2017 decision of the Commission regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother, an issue already decided in a prior 2019 decision.

The court found the application to be an abuse of process, noting the applicant's misuse of fee waivers and improper direct communications with judges.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to appear to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant and subjected to further restrictions.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirming his conviction for discreditable conduct and a nine-month demotion.

The applicant argued his guilty plea was invalid due to a panic attack and that his hearing counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file medical evidence at the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission reasonably concluded the guilty plea was voluntary and that counsel's tactical decision not to file the medical report in light of a joint submission on penalty did not constitute ineffective assistance.

The court also refused to admit supplemental affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission refusing to investigate an incident from 2006 where the applicant's brother was tasered by police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion not to proceed with an investigation given the passage of time and the extensive airing of the issues in prior court proceedings.

The court also found no error in the Commission's treatment of the evidence or any basis for allegations of an improper purpose.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for unnecessary use of force against a person in custody.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission applied the correct standard of review and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was warranted despite some errors by the Hearing Officer.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's penalty requiring her to resign or face termination.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting 15 fraudulent massage therapy benefits claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OCPC reasonably applied the standard of review, properly deferred to the Hearing Officer's weighing of the Krug factors and usefulness test, and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was within the range of acceptable outcomes.

Appeal of convictions and sentences for violations of the Highway Traffic Act arising from a wheel detachment incident on October 10, 2013.

Inter County Concrete Products Limited was charged under section 84.1(1) for permitting operation of a commercial motor vehicle from which a wheel became detached.

Pedrag Petkovic was charged under section 84(1) for driving a vehicle in a dangerous or unsafe condition.

The trial justice convicted both appellants and imposed substantial fines.

The appellants appealed both convictions and sentences, raising issues regarding the sufficiency of the information, the characterization of the offence, and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.

The Crown brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's proceedings, which were commenced by a Notice of Constitutional Question, arguing they were premature and brought in the wrong court.

The applicant sought various remedies including Charter damages, exclusion of evidence, and judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court agreed with the Crown, finding the application premature as the Licence Appeal Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the Charter issues and the applicant had not exhausted administrative remedies.

The application was dismissed without prejudice, advising the applicant to complete the tribunal process and then, if necessary, pursue remedies before the Divisional Court.

The appellant's G2 driver's licence was medically suspended in 2007 and expired in 2008.

In 2016, the suspension was lifted and the appellant was issued a G1 licence because he had been unlicensed for more than three years.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing the Minister should have included his prior time as a G2 licensee in the time computation.

The Minister brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Minister's decision was not an imposition or removal of conditions under section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act, but rather a standard application of the Act and Regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and closed the file.

The appellant appealed the Director's proposal to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence.

The Director relied on the appellant's extensive history of past misconduct, including multiple convictions under the Highway Traffic Act and the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, as well as previous licence revocations.

The Tribunal found that the Director met the onus of establishing reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate the station in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

As the appellant called no evidence to demonstrate how he had learned from past mistakes, the appeal was dismissed and the Director was directed to carry out the proposal.

The Executive Chair of the Licence Appeal Tribunal initiated a reconsideration of a decision that ordered the release of an impounded rental vehicle.

The original decision found the vehicle was 'stolen' because it was driven by an unauthorized person with a suspended licence, contrary to the rental agreement.

On reconsideration, the Executive Chair found the Tribunal made significant errors of law and fact by interpreting 'stolen' to mean use contrary to the owner's instructions, which broadened the term beyond its ordinary meaning.

The order was varied to find the vehicle was not stolen, and the appeal was stayed for mootness as the vehicle had already been released.

The appellant appealed an order by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates due to an unacceptably high violation rate and ongoing hours of service violations.

Despite multiple interventions, warning letters, and interviews over several years, the appellant's safety performance did not significantly improve.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate effective remedial measures and confirmed the Registrar's cancellation and seizure order, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant rental car company appealed the impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle had been rented to a customer with strict instructions that only she was permitted to drive it.

At the time of impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by an unidentified suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) of the Act because it was taken without the owner's consent, and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The corporate Appellant appealed the Registrar's refusal to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) Certificate.

The refusal was based on the poor safety record and failed facility audits of the Appellant's sole director and president, who the Registrar deemed a 'related' person under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Appellant argued it was a separate legal entity and should not be penalized for its director's record.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the director controlled or managed the Appellant, making him a related person, and that his history of failed audits justified the Registrar's refusal.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse the issuance of a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) licence.

The Director's refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct, including the revocation of a previous MVIS licence, convictions for issuing improper Safety Standard Certificates, and a poor safety record as a Commercial Vehicle Operator.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, particularly the misuse of Safety Standard Certificates and failure to maintain vehicles in good condition, afforded reasonable grounds to believe the MVIS would not be operated in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Director to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence.

The Appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to revoke their Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence and mechanic's registration.

The Ministry presented evidence that the Appellants had issued safety certificates for numerous vehicles with severe defects, including extensive corrosion, that should not have passed inspection.

The Appellants argued that they lacked education on corrosion and relied on advice from other mechanics.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellants failed to meet inspection requirements and posed a risk to public safety.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the revocation of the licence and registration.