Miriam Saksznajder

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that dismissed charges of neglect of duty against two police officers.

The officers had investigated a fatal motor vehicle collision involving a pedestrian and declined to demand an approved screening device (ASD) sample from the driver, despite the driver's admission to consuming one or two beers earlier in the evening.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that the officers did not have a reasonable suspicion that the driver had alcohol in his body at the time of the accident, as there were no physical indicia of alcohol consumption or impairment.

The Commission concluded that the officers reasonably exercised their discretion under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code and dismissed the appeal.

Two police officers appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest without good and sufficient cause.

The officers had arrested a driver leaving a laneway near a suspected drug dealer's residence without observing any drug transaction or confirming the driver's identity.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's reasons were adequate in the administrative law context and that the officers lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against four police officers for failing to make an approved screening device (ASD) demand following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Hearing Officer had ruled that the driver's admission of alcohol consumption was a legally compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act and could not be used to form reasonable suspicion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found this ruling unreasonable, as there was no evidence the driver subjectively believed he was legally compelled to report the accident.

The Commission revoked the dismissal for the two first-responding officers and remitted the matter for continuation, but confirmed the dismissal for the two later-arriving officers who could not have made a demand 'forthwith'.

The appellants, a lawyer and his law firm, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application for judicial review.

They challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) to reprimand the lawyer for allegedly making misleading statements while representing a client.

The appellants argued that such conduct must be dealt with exclusively through quasi-criminal proceedings or by the Law Society.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Securities Act provides the OSC with a flexible range of remedial options, including administrative reprimands under s. 127.

The Court also affirmed that the OSC has jurisdiction to reprimand lawyers acting in their professional capacity, provided that solicitor-client privilege is respected.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence arising from an armed jewellery store robbery in which he was alleged to have been the getaway driver.

The court held that handgun evidence found during a warrantless search of his residence should have been excluded because the breach of s. 8 of the Charter was deliberate, flagrant, and not justified by urgency, but applied the proviso because the accomplice evidence made the conviction inevitable.

The court also held that the trial judge erred in treating the rejected alibi as concocted absent sufficient extrinsic evidence of fabrication, though that error likewise caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, but the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to adequately account for parity, differing criminal records, and the appellant’s lesser role in the violence.