Melanie Goren

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissing his appeal of a police discipline hearing outcome.

The Commission had ruled the appeal was filed out of time because, although faxed and received on the final day of the 30-day limit, a statutory deeming provision deemed faxed documents received the following day.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the deeming provision created a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute one.

The provision is intended to protect the serving party, not to act as a trap to deprive them of a statutory right of appeal when actual receipt within the time limit is established.

The moving party brought a motion to add the Independent Police Review Director, the Toronto Police Service, and several constables as respondents in his application for judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The constables opposed only the addition of the Director.

The court found that the Director was already imperfectly named as a respondent in the body of the notice of application and could be added to the heading without leave.

Alternatively, the court held that the Director ought to have been named as a respondent because he had a statutory right to be heard on the appeal before the Commission and his unique oversight role under the Police Services Act made his presence necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues.

The motion was granted.

The appellant police officer was dismissed for unsatisfactory work performance after a hearing officer found the police service's ad hoc performance evaluation procedures were sufficient despite deviating from mandatory policies.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the officer's appeal, finding the strict application of the performance review policies was a mandatory precondition under O. Reg. 268/10.

The Divisional Court set aside the Commission's decision on judicial review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the officer's appeal and restored the Commission's decision, holding that the Commission's interpretation of the regulation was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant, an HIV-positive inmate, was placed in administrative segregation due to safety concerns regarding his sexual relations with other inmates.

He applied for habeas corpus, which was dismissed by the application judge despite findings of minor procedural flaws in the segregation review process.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the application judge lacked discretion to deny the writ once a breach of procedural fairness was found.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the procedural flaws did not render the detention unlawful and that the application judge properly exercised his residual discretion to deny the writ.

The applicant sought to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant.

The respondent, who has physical disabilities, requested that the application be transferred from Toronto to the Central West region to accommodate her needs.

The court granted the transfer to Milton in the interests of justice, noting the respondent's accessibility issues.

Pending the hearing of the application, the court ordered that the respondent must seek leave before commencing any new proceeding or taking further steps in existing proceedings, in both her personal capacity and as an estate trustee.

The applicant, an inmate awaiting sentencing for attempted murder and aggravated sexual assault related to HIV transmission, applied for habeas corpus to be removed from administrative segregation and placed in the general prison population with a cellmate.

The applicant argued a denial of procedural fairness and failure to conduct mandated five-day reviews.

The court found that while there was a denial of procedural fairness in how the reviews were documented, the applicant was aware of the reasons for his segregation.

Due to the high risk the applicant posed to other inmates, the court held that administrative segregation was lawful and necessary for safety.

The application was dismissed, but the institution was ordered to continue offering alternative accommodation proposals.