Lorenzo D. Policelli

The Ontario Provincial Police brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by Sergeant Mulligan regarding his transfer from aviation duties.

The OPP argued the transfer was an administrative decision, not a disciplinary one, and therefore the Commission lacked jurisdiction.

The Commission found that the essential character of the dispute was disciplinary, stemming from allegations of insubordination, and constituted disguised discipline.

Applying a liberal interpretation of the Police Services Act, the Commission determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the lack of a formal disciplinary hearing.

The motion was dismissed and the appeal was ordered to proceed.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) sought access to and copies of exhibits from a preliminary inquiry involving four correctional officers charged in the death of Ashley Smith.

The charges were dropped, and the exhibits were transferred for a coroner's inquest.

The application judge granted CBC access but restricted copying to portions of the video played in open court and prohibited copying the footage of Smith's death.

The Court of Appeal allowed CBC's appeal, holding that the Dagenais/Mentuck test applies to media requests for exhibits and that the open court principle includes the right to copy exhibits in full, absent convincing evidence of a serious risk to the administration of justice or other protected interests.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to extend the time for serving a notice of hearing for disciplinary proceedings.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that the Commissioner's decision was interlocutory and administrative in nature.

The court emphasized the general principle against fragmenting administrative proceedings and noted that the applicant could raise any issues of prejudice or delay before the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) after it dismissed his complaint against the Windsor Police Service.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with claims of discrimination relating entirely to the adjudicative functions of a statutory tribunal.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a finding of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant discharged his firearm at the tires of a fleeing stolen vehicle during a dangerous pursuit.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer and the Commission applied the wrong test by focusing on the objective reasonableness of the force used rather than the appellant's subjective 'sole purpose' for discharging the firearm under s. 8 of O. Reg. 546/99.

The appeal was allowed and the charge of discreditable conduct was dismissed.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of a decision refusing to quash a notice of hearing regarding a misconduct complaint.

The applicant argued that because the chief of police's delegate initially found the complaint unsubstantiated, he was functus officio and could not subsequently issue a notice of hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the initial decision was an investigative, administrative screening function, not a final adjudicative decision, and therefore the doctrine of functus officio did not apply.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 12-hour forfeiture with conditions.

The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant discharged his firearm at the tires of a fleeing suspect vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer fired for the sole purpose of stopping the vehicle, contrary to O. Reg. 546/99.

However, the Commission varied the penalty by removing the condition that the penalty be satisfied within one month and reported to the Professional Standards Bureau, leaving the timing to the unit commander.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty imposed for discharging his firearm at the tires of a fleeing vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer's actions violated the prohibition against firing at a moving vehicle for the sole purpose of stopping it, as he was not in immediate danger when he fired.

The Commission varied the penalty by removing the condition that the forfeiture of twelve hours be completed within one month and reported to the Professional Standards Bureau, leaving the timing to the unit commander.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and the associated penalty of a 12-hour forfeiture.

The conviction arose from an incident where the officer discharged his firearm at the rear tire of a fleeing stolen vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer fired for the sole purpose of stopping the vehicle, contrary to section 8 of O. Reg. 546/99, and not out of an immediate fear for his life, as the vehicle was passing him at the time.

However, the Commission varied the penalty by deleting the Hearing Officer's conditions regarding the specific timing and reporting of the 12-hour forfeiture, finding those matters best left to the officer's unit commander.

The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal appealed a Superior Court decision quashing its interim order that allowed a subset of tenants to testify on behalf of over 300 tenants in a rent abatement application.

The Superior Court had ruled the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to authorize what it characterized as a representative action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's order did not create a representative action but rather approved an expeditious procedural method for introducing oral evidence in a combined multi-party application, which was within its jurisdiction under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) sought judicial review of an interim order by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that allowed 11 tenants to give representative evidence on behalf of 312 tenants in a rent abatement application.

The tenants claimed the MTHA interfered with their reasonable enjoyment during balcony repairs.

The Divisional Court granted leave for judicial review due to urgency and quashed the Tribunal's order.

The Court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the Tenant Protection Act to permit a representative action, distinguishing it from the former Landlord and Tenant Act which explicitly allowed such proceedings.