Marnie Bacher

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Ontario Provincial Police Association requested intervenor status, which the respondents did not oppose, though they argued the extent of participation should be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

The Tribunal granted the intervention request, leaving the scope of participation to the hearing adjudicator.

The respondents also requested dismissal of part of the application under section 45.1 of the Code or as an abuse of process, citing previous Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal deferred this request to the hearing adjudicator, finding it inefficient to hear it at this stage.

The applicants filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to reactivate their human rights applications, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related provincial offences proceedings arising from a traffic stop.

The respondents opposed the request because the applicants had appealed their convictions, meaning the court proceedings were still ongoing.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding it inappropriate to proceed and make factual findings while key factual issues regarding the traffic stop remained before the courts on appeal.

The applicants alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability during a traffic stop.

The respondent police officers had issued summonses under the Highway Traffic Act and the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act during the stop, which were currently before the Court.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights applications until the Court proceedings were resolved.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it inappropriate to proceed with a hearing that would require making factual findings about matters currently before the Courts.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application while concurrently pursuing a workplace grievance-arbitration process based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The applicant opposed deferral, citing concerns about the remedies available at arbitration and potential delays.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and that delay is not a sufficient reason to proceed with concurrent applications.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Ontario Provincial Police during an arrest.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed beyond the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application and failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct related to unauthorized secondary employment.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of unauthorized secondary employment during the cross-examination of the appellant, effectively splitting its case.

The Commission also found that the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt lacked an evidentiary foundation and adequate reasoning, as the appellant's undisputed testimony indicated he had received verbal approval for his secondary employment.

The conviction was revoked.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct related to unauthorized secondary employment.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence regarding the lack of authorization for the secondary employment during the cross-examination of the appellant, effectively splitting its case.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to provide adequate reasoning for rejecting the appellant's undisputed testimony that he had received verbal approval for his business activities.

The conviction was revoked due to procedural unfairness and lack of evidentiary foundation.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-hour forfeiture of pay.

The conviction arose from the officer's failure to pay for a wood splitter purchased at an auction while off duty until after he was interviewed by Professional Standards.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that a valid public complaint had been initiated.

The Commission also upheld the 16-hour forfeiture penalty, finding it within the reasonable range given the officer's prior disciplinary history, but varied the penalty by deleting the specific directions regarding how and when the hours were to be served.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a disciplinary conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-hour forfeiture.

The conviction arose from an unpaid debt for snow removal services related to his secondary employment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Police Services Act regarding the timeliness of the complaint and that there was sufficient evidence the appellant received the invoices.

However, the Commission varied the penalty to an 8-hour forfeiture, concluding that the original penalty was excessive for minor off-duty misconduct and that severe general deterrence was not required.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting 20-day suspension without pay.

The conviction arose from an incident where the officer stopped a female acquaintance on an isolated road while on duty and made inappropriate sexual comments.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt, concluding that the credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, reducing the suspension to 15 days and ordering the officer to complete a sexual harassment prevention program, noting mitigating factors such as the officer's prior good record and recognition of the gravity of the misconduct.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting 20-day suspension without pay.

The conviction stemmed from an incident where the appellant stopped a female acquaintance on an isolated road while on duty and made inappropriate sexual comments.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to a 15-day suspension and ordered the appellant to complete sexual harassment prevention training, noting his prior good record and recognition of the gravity of the misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting 20-day suspension without pay.

The conviction stemmed from an incident where the officer stopped a female civilian on an isolated road and made inappropriate sexual comments.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's credibility assessment that favoured the complainant's version of events.

However, the Commission varied the penalty to a 15-day suspension and directed the officer to complete sexual harassment prevention training, noting his prior good record and recognition of the gravity of the misconduct.