O'Driscoll J.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty of resignation or dismissal.

The misconduct involved nine separate incidents of careless use of a firearm and one incident of showing a scrotum piercing to a female officer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer had considered the appropriate factors, including the gravity of the misconduct, employment history, and rehabilitation prospects, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range.

The appellant appealed the Board's decision refusing to issue a liquor licence for its U-Brew business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding that the Board's findings of fact were reasonable.

The Board properly interpreted the regulations in a broad, purposive manner in the interest of public safety and health, and was justified in refusing the licence under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act given the appellant's history of non-compliance.

The appellant appealed an order for retroactive child support in the amount of $42,917.88 to the Divisional Court, characterizing it as an interlocutory order.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its own jurisdiction and determined that the order was final, as it finally determined the issue of retroactivity for the years 1998 to 2001.

Because the order was final and for a single payment of more than $25,000, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was adjourned and transferred to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

At the opening of an application for judicial review regarding a coroner's inquest, the applicants brought a motion to remove the law firm representing the respondent Coroner.

The firm had previously done corporate legal work for a corporation that had standing at the inquest.

Although there was no actual conflict of interest, the Divisional Court granted the motion and removed the firm based on the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and avoid any appearance of impropriety.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action appealed an order requiring their expert witnesses to answer questions regarding the foundation and assumptions of their opinions during cross-examination on affidavits filed in response to a summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's ruling that cross-examination on an expert's affidavit should be subject to the same rules as other affiants and is not strictly limited to the four corners of the affidavit.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of Inquiry and sought to introduce fresh evidence and claim Charter damages against the Board and the Human Rights Commission for delay.

The Divisional Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to award damages, that the Board is not a suable entity, and that delay does not found a claim under s. 7 of the Charter.

The court also denied the appellant's request for an adjournment to file a companion application for judicial review, ordering the appeal to proceed on its merits.