Lorna Boyd

Following an unsuccessful appeal regarding a police complaint, the successful respondent officer sought costs of $18,201.50.

The appellant argued that he pursued the appeal in good faith, had limited financial means, and that a large costs award would deter citizens from advancing legitimate complaints against the police.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event but fixed the quantum at $4,000 all inclusive, considering the lack of complexity, the short hearing, the appellant's personal circumstances, and reasonable expectations.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a Hearing Officer's finding that the respondent police officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant alleged the officer breached his Charter rights by administering a breath test without proper caution after the appellant was evicted from a park.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonable for the Hearing Officer to conclude the breath test was voluntary and the officer's actions in ensuring the safety of the campers and the public did not constitute discreditable conduct.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged that the officer failed to promptly arrest her ex-husband and seize his firearms following her report of a domestic assault.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by the evidence.

The Commission held that the officer exercised his discretion reasonably given the circumstances, including the appellant's primary desire to retrieve her belongings and her request that her ex-husband not be arrested in front of their son.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's arguments that the hearing process was procedurally flawed.

The appellant appealed a finding of not guilty of neglect of duty by a Hearing Officer with respect to a police sergeant.

The appellant alleged the sergeant neglected his duty by failing to promptly arrest her ex-husband for domestic assault and seize his firearms.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence and that the sergeant acted reasonably and professionally in handling the situation, given the appellant's primary concern at the time was retrieving her belongings rather than immediate fear.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police sergeant not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged the sergeant failed to promptly arrest her ex-husband and seize his firearms following her report of a domestic assault.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence, noting that the appellant's primary concern at the time was retrieving her belongings, not immediate fear, and that the sergeant exercised reasonable discretion in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The complainant, a 62-year-old employee with over 39 years of service within the Bata shoe organization, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his age.

The respondent employer maintained that the termination was due to poor performance and a necessary corporate reorganization to address financial difficulties.

The Board of Inquiry found no evidence of age discrimination, concluding that the complainant and other older employees were terminated for legitimate business reasons.

The respondents' request for costs against the Commission for a poor investigation was denied, as the complaint was not found to be trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.