Paul Bailey

At a pre-hearing conference, the Financial Services Tribunal considered applications for party status and a motion by the unrepresented applicant to convert the proceeding from an oral to a written hearing.

The Tribunal granted limited party status to two organizations but dismissed the other applications.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's motion for a written hearing, finding that the presence of contested expert evidence constituted good reason to maintain an oral hearing to allow for cross-examination, despite the applicant's concerns about being unrepresented.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for damage to equipment under the Police Act after losing control of his cruiser during a high-speed pursuit and striking a hydro pole.

He argued that the evidence did not support a finding of carelessness and that the charge was void because no written complaint was proven at trial.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the facts of the accident alone were sufficient to establish carelessness in the absence of an explanation at trial.

The Commission also held that the appellant's failure to demand production of the written complaint at the inception of the trial constituted an acceptance of the trial officer's jurisdiction.