Norman W. Feaver

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for neglect of duty and unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority arising from his use of force against an intoxicated, handcuffed individual in a police cruiser.

The Commission revoked the finding of guilt for unlawful exercise of authority, finding the Hearing Officer applied the wrong standard of proof, improperly relied on personal experience to determine the cause of the individual's injury, and made irreconcilably inconsistent findings of credibility.

However, the Commission confirmed the finding of guilt for neglect of duty, upholding the determination that the appellant deliberately misled his supervisor and failed to properly document the use of force in his notes and reports.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of a 20-month demotion from Sergeant to First Class Constable imposed following his guilty plea to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved off-duty impaired driving and an altercation with a witness.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by considering facts not in evidence, giving insufficient weight to mitigating factors, misdirecting himself on internal policies, and improperly differentiating joint submission cases.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found no clear error in principle and confirmed the penalty, emphasizing the seriousness of drinking and driving by police officers.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty and the resulting penalty of a 40-hour forfeiture.

The misconduct charge arose from the appellant's failure to properly investigate a domestic violence complaint reported by a member of the public.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility and in concluding that there was sufficient information to warrant further investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer applied the correct legal principles in assessing credibility and that his findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting that the Hearing Officer appropriately weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors, including the seriousness of failing to properly respond to a domestic violence complaint.

The Appellant police officer appealed to the Commission regarding a transfer and a request for restitution of 34 days' pay, which he alleged were disciplinary actions imposed without complying with Part V of the Police Services Act.

The Respondent argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the actions were administrative and the appeal was out of time.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction, as the actions arose inferentially from the disciplinary scheme.

The Commission dismissed the appeal as premature, struck down the Record of Informal Discipline, and directed the Commissioner to hold a hearing under section 76(9) of the Act.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct and a penalty of demotion arising from an allegation that he referred to his police baton using a racial slur.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to apply the proper legal test for credibility equally to both the appellant and the complainant.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's credibility findings unreasonable as they ignored objective evidence, such as swipe card records, that contradicted the complainant's version of events.

The finding of misconduct was vacated and a finding of not guilty was substituted.

Following the release of reasons disposing of the appeals regarding an Indigenous land claim, the Court of Appeal determined the costs of the proceedings.

The court ordered the appellant to pay 50% of the federal and provincial crowns' costs of the appeals on a party and party basis, noting the federal crown's unsuccessful arguments regarding the validity of the land surrender.

The class representatives, including the railway company, were awarded 100% of their costs for both the summary judgment motions and the appeals on a party and party basis.

The court directed that all costs be assessed rather than fixed.

An Indigenous band appealed from a summary judgment disposition concerning reserve lands sold in the 19th century without a lawful formal surrender.

The Court of Appeal held that there had been no surrender and that the claim was not barred by statutory limitation periods, but concluded that declaratory and possessory relief should nevertheless be refused.

The court applied public law discretion and equitable doctrines, emphasizing the band's historical acquiescence, the extraordinary delay in asserting the land claim, and the reliance of innocent third-party landowners who had held and developed the properties for generations.

The band was left to pursue its damages claims against the Crown.