Robert Houston

The appellant police officer appealed findings of Neglect of Duty and Discreditable Conduct arising from his failure to arrest a suspect following a 9-1-1 call.

The Hearing Officer had found the appellant guilty and imposed a reduction in rank.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in his credibility assessments by relying solely on demeanour without providing cogent reasons, and misapprehended the evidence regarding whether reasonable and probable grounds existed to arrest the suspect.

The Commission concluded that the appellant reasonably determined there were no grounds for arrest.

The appeal was allowed, the findings of guilt were revoked, and the appellant was found not guilty on both charges.

The Attorney General for Ontario applied to intervene in a criminal appeal on a non-constitutional issue regarding the cross-examination of a complainant on medical records.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application, holding that very special circumstances must be shown to permit a provincial Attorney General to intervene on non-constitutional issues in a criminal appeal originating from another province.

The applicant failed to establish such circumstances or show that its submissions would provide a fresh perspective beyond those of the parties.

The appellants appealed a decision striking out their statement of claim, which sought a declaration that various federal and provincial statutes were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the test for striking out a statement of claim was not met, as the outcome was not 'plain and obvious' or 'beyond doubt'.

The Court found that the issues regarding the interpretation of the Manitoba Act, 1870 and the Constitution Act, 1871 were better determined at trial with a proper factual base, and that the subject matter was justiciable.

The respondents were acquitted at trial on charges of conspiracy to commit frauds upon the government under s. 110 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in his interpretation of 'benefit', 'consideration', and 'cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence'.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the trial judge made errors of law in interpreting the constituent elements of the offence—specifically by failing to recognize that arranging meetings could constitute cooperation or assistance—the acquittals must stand because the trial judge made findings of fact that there was no agreement for the accused to provide such services.

The appeal was dismissed.