Miriam Saksznajder

The applicant, Alex Martinez, brought a motion for a panel review of a single judge's dismissal of his motion for leave to appeal.

The respondent, Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), sought to dismiss the review motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's decision and noting the applicant's materials contained scurrilous insults.

The Review Motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), which found insufficient evidence that police officers committed misconduct during an interaction that ended with the applicant's daughter falling to her death from a balcony.

The applicant alleged excessive force, neglect of duty, deceit, and discreditable conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's investigation and conclusions were reasonable, transparent, and justified based on the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out her complaint against three police officers.

The applicant alleged the officers failed to lay additional charges against an individual and treated her with disrespect based on her gender and ethnicity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness during the screening process.

The court held that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers' exercise of discretion did not constitute misconduct and that there was no evidence of bias or differential treatment.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay Police Services Act misconduct proceedings against two police officers for abuse of process due to delay.

The proceedings arose from an incident over eight years prior, and the Hearing Officer found the delay, largely attributable to the prosecution, was inexcusable and caused significant prejudice to the officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Blencoe test for abuse of process.

The Commission concluded the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act misconduct charges against two officers due to delay.

The Hearing Officer had found the delay amounted to an abuse of process under the Blencoe framework.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the matter raised issues of significant importance to the policing profession and the community, particularly regarding the role of a public complainant's interests in a Blencoe analysis and the impact of parallel criminal proceedings on administrative delay.

The applicant, a police officer, was found guilty of misconduct under the Police Services Act for unlawful arrest and excessive force during the G20 summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct findings but reduced the penalty to a one-month demotion.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the Commission erred in its standard of review and treatment of the Hearing Officer's credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's decision was reasonable and properly deferred to the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act charges against the respondent officers.

The respondent officers brought a motion to dismiss the request for leave to appeal, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the proposed appellant failed to serve the Solicitor General and the Independent Police Review Director within the 30-day statutory period.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that under section 87 of the Police Services Act and the Commission's rules, service on statutory interveners is not required until after leave to appeal has been granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out his complaints against Toronto Police Service officers.

The OIPRD declined to proceed because it lacked jurisdiction over events occurring before its creation in 2009, and because the passage of time made it unlikely that an investigation into a 2013 incident would find misconduct.

The Divisional Court found the OIPRD's decision reasonable based on the record and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to proceed with his complaint against the police.

The OIPRD had screened out the complaint as frivolous under section 60(4) of the Police Services Act, finding no air of reality to the allegations of hacking, being followed, and police corruption.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable based on the record before it.

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.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a reprimand for the superintendent's role in ordering the unlawful arrest and detention of the complainants.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for such unprecedented and highly scrutinized Charter breaches was of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The superintendent had been found guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and discreditable conduct for ordering the 'kettling' and unlawful arrest of protestors, and was penalized with a forfeiture of 30 days off.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for a senior commander in these unprecedented circumstances is of significant importance to the policing profession and the public.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for allegedly using unnecessary force during the G20 summit.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the Notice of Hearing served on the officer differed from the draft notice approved by the Police Services Board in a delay application under section 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's role under section 83(17) is limited to determining whether the delay in serving the notice was reasonable, not approving the specific wording of the charge.

The Commission revoked the stay and remitted the matter for a re-hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Independent Police Review Director and the Chief of Police classifying an unjustified strip search by a police officer as misconduct 'not of a serious nature' under the Police Services Act.

The applicant argued that an unjustified strip search must always be classified as serious misconduct and that the failure to hold a disciplinary hearing breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Director and Chief have statutory discretion to assess the seriousness of misconduct based on the specific circumstances.

The court found the decisions were reasonable given the facts, including that the search was conducted privately, without touching, and in accordance with policy, and that no hearing was required once the misconduct was reasonably deemed not serious.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's appeal for failure to serve a Notice of Appeal within the thirty-day statutory period under the Police Services Act.

The complainant faxed the Notice of Appeal on the thirtieth day, but under section 96(2) of the Act, faxed documents are deemed received on the following day.

The Commission held that the appeal was served on the thirty-first day and that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit.

The appeal was dismissed as untimely.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing misconduct charges against two police officers for allegedly making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The appellant had been arrested for wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence after officers observed him wearing an orange bandana over his face.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges based entirely on finding the appellant not credible, without analyzing the legal elements of a lawful arrest under the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons inadequate, as they failed to address whether the officers had subjective and objective reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing before a different Hearing Officer.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by appearing to reverse the burden of proof, requiring the officer to prove he had reasonable and probable grounds.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to adequately analyze the officer's subjective belief and whether there was good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

Given the excessive delay of over five years, the Commission revoked the finding of misconduct rather than remitting the matter for a new hearing.

Constable Wong appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of a one-day suspension without pay for making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The public complainant also appealed the penalty, arguing it was inadequate.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law regarding the burden of proof and the essential elements of the misconduct charge.

However, the Commission exercised its power to substitute its own decision, finding that the evidence supported the misconduct charge on a balance of probabilities.

The Commission upheld the one-day suspension penalty as reasonable.

The appellant police officer brought a motion to strike portions of a factum delivered by the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), acting as a statutory intervener in her disciplinary appeal.

The appellant argued the OIPRD overstepped its permissible boundaries by making submissions not based on the record and inviting policy considerations.

The Commission held it had jurisdiction to strike portions of a factum under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to control its own process.

The Commission struck one paragraph that requested an order beyond the OIPRD's mandate, but dismissed the remainder of the motion, finding the other impugned paragraphs were not so obviously irrelevant or inappropriately prejudicial as to justify being struck.

The police service applied for an order under the Youth Criminal Justice Act to disclose a young person's police records for use in a police disciplinary hearing against an officer.

The subject officer also sought access to the records.

The court held that both the police service and the officer must apply for access under sections 119(1)(s) and 123 of the Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that neither applicant established a valid interest in the records, as the records had no nexus to the alleged misconduct and were not relevant to the young person's credibility or character.

Furthermore, granting access would undermine the privacy protections and principles of diminished moral culpability under the Act.