Raymond E. Boggs

Following the issuance of its decision on appeal, the court was informed that the respondent's counsel had fallen ill and could not meet the deadline to serve and file an amended pleading.

The appellants consented to an extension and requested that the requirement for the respondent's approval of the draft order be dispensed with so they could seek leave to appeal.

The court granted the extension and dispensed with the approval requirement.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim against the Chief of Police and the Police Services Board.

The plaintiff alleged he was brutally beaten by police officers and claimed the Chief and Board were liable for negligent training, supervision, and systemic issues.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, striking the allegations against the Board relating to day-to-day operational functions, as the Board's statutory duty is limited to policy.

The court also struck irrelevant after-the-fact allegations but upheld the claims against the Chief and the policy-related claims against the Board.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated January 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario suspending its licence.

The appellant argued that the regulatory hearing was barred by res judicata, double jeopardy, and abuse of process following a quasi-criminal acquittal, and that translation difficulties led to a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulatory jurisdiction is separate from the quasi-criminal prosecution, Charter s. 11(h) does not apply to regulatory proceedings, and no unfairness or translation difficulty was established.