Matthew Peachey

The applicant sought judicial review of four Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions that denied his appeals and reconsideration requests regarding the impoundment of his vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded twice after the applicant drove while his license was suspended for impaired driving convictions.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness and held that the Tribunal's decisions, including its findings on exceptional hardship and the non-retroactive effect of a criminal driving prohibition stay, were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, an off-duty police officer, spoke at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization despite being ordered not to attend or speak.

He was convicted of insubordination and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction but upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under s. 49 of the Police Services Act.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the Commission's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider s. 80(2) of the Act, which requires a connection between off-duty conduct and the occupational requirements or reputation of the police force.

Given the Commission's findings on the discreditable conduct charge, the court concluded the s. 80(2) test could not be met and revoked the insubordination conviction.

The applicant, an OPP Sergeant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding findings of misconduct for writing a letter to a newspaper criticizing a helicopter relocation.

The applicant argued the Hearing Officer was biased and erred in denying a disclosure motion, which prevented him from establishing a whistleblower defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and agreeing with the Commission that the whistleblower defence failed because the applicant did not first raise his concerns internally with his chain of command.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding a finding of misconduct for the unlawful arrest of a videographer during the G20 summit.

The applicant argued the Commission erred in its standard of review and that the Hearing Officer's reasons were inadequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the reasons were adequate for appellate review and that the finding of misconduct was reasonable given the lack of good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

The self-represented applicant appeared before the court to address his conduct in advancing multiple applications regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother.

During the hearing, the applicant was belligerent, disrespectful, and repeatedly interrupted the judge, leading to a finding of contempt in the face of the court.

The court sentenced the applicant to three days of time served.

Additionally, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court ordered that the applicant be prohibited from commencing further proceedings related to the 2006 incident without prior judicial permission.

The court also dismissed the applicant's latest application under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The respondent Commission brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the applicant's application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought to challenge a 2017 decision of the Commission regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother, an issue already decided in a prior 2019 decision.

The court found the application to be an abuse of process, noting the applicant's misuse of fee waivers and improper direct communications with judges.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to appear to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant and subjected to further restrictions.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirming his conviction for discreditable conduct and a nine-month demotion.

The applicant argued his guilty plea was invalid due to a panic attack and that his hearing counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file medical evidence at the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission reasonably concluded the guilty plea was voluntary and that counsel's tactical decision not to file the medical report in light of a joint submission on penalty did not constitute ineffective assistance.

The court also refused to admit supplemental affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission refusing to investigate an incident from 2006 where the applicant's brother was tasered by police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion not to proceed with an investigation given the passage of time and the extensive airing of the issues in prior court proceedings.

The court also found no error in the Commission's treatment of the evidence or any basis for allegations of an improper purpose.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for unnecessary use of force against a person in custody.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission applied the correct standard of review and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was warranted despite some errors by the Hearing Officer.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding a Hearing Officer's penalty requiring her to resign or face termination.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting 15 fraudulent massage therapy benefits claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OCPC reasonably applied the standard of review, properly deferred to the Hearing Officer's weighing of the Krug factors and usefulness test, and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was within the range of acceptable outcomes.

Appeal of convictions and sentences for violations of the Highway Traffic Act arising from a wheel detachment incident on October 10, 2013.

Inter County Concrete Products Limited was charged under section 84.1(1) for permitting operation of a commercial motor vehicle from which a wheel became detached.

Pedrag Petkovic was charged under section 84(1) for driving a vehicle in a dangerous or unsafe condition.

The trial justice convicted both appellants and imposed substantial fines.

The appellants appealed both convictions and sentences, raising issues regarding the sufficiency of the information, the characterization of the offence, and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.

The Crown brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's proceedings, which were commenced by a Notice of Constitutional Question, arguing they were premature and brought in the wrong court.

The applicant sought various remedies including Charter damages, exclusion of evidence, and judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court agreed with the Crown, finding the application premature as the Licence Appeal Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the Charter issues and the applicant had not exhausted administrative remedies.

The application was dismissed without prejudice, advising the applicant to complete the tribunal process and then, if necessary, pursue remedies before the Divisional Court.