Robert Charles Edwards

The respondents in a human rights application alleging age discrimination in a police hiring process brought a Request for Order during a Proceeding to amend their Response and to compel the production of documents.

The applicant did not oppose the amendment but resisted producing notes taken during the evaluation process, claiming they were privileged.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment and ordered the production of the notes, finding they were relevant and that no basis for privilege had been established.

The applicant alleged that police officers harassed him based on his disability during traffic stops.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through a Police Services Act investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the police investigation focused on Highway Traffic Act authority and explicitly avoided addressing whether the Code was violated.

The Tribunal also denied the self-represented applicant's renewed request for an adjournment, as he failed to provide medical documentation supporting his claim that his disabilities precluded him from proceeding.

The complainant, aged 57, alleged age discrimination after being unsuccessful in a competition for a tenure-track assistant professor position.

The Tribunal found that age was not a factor in the hiring decision, as the successful candidate was preferred due to superior teaching and current research.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent university and its Dean failed to adequately investigate allegations of age discrimination raised by a dissenting member of the hiring committee, thereby violating the Human Rights Code.

In an ongoing human rights complaint alleging age discrimination in a university hiring process, the Commission requested further particulars and production of documents midway through the hearing.

The requested documents included faculty turnover rates, staffing complement, other competition processes, post-hiring evaluations of the successful candidate, and submissions to the Maclean's university survey.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the documents were either not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute or that the request was made too late without explanation.

The Tribunal also declined to require that notice of a summons be given to a witness under section 11(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, directing instead that the summoned documents be produced to counsel.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The conviction arose after the appellant crashed his police cruiser and subsequently provided a false statement to the investigating officer, claiming he had left his roof lights on from an earlier traffic stop.

At the hearing, the appellant called a psychologist to suggest his memory was impaired, but the Hearings Officer rejected this evidence and found the appellant was deceitful.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearings Officer's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the psychological theory of memory contamination was unfounded.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for tampering with evidence and failing to lay appropriate charges.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for deceit under the Police Services Act.

The conviction arose from a false statement he gave to an investigating officer after he crashed his police cruiser into a bridge.

The appellant claimed he had left his roof lights on from an earlier traffic stop, but civilian witnesses confirmed he activated them just before the crash.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearings Officer erred by discounting expert psychological evidence suggesting memory impairment.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was beyond the expert's expertise and unsupported by the facts.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for failing to properly investigate the collision and tampering with evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for deceit under the Police Services Act after providing a false statement regarding a single-vehicle collision involving his police cruiser.

The appellant argued the Hearings Officer erred in discounting expert psychological evidence suggesting his memory was impaired.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the expert's theory of memory contamination unsupported by the evidence and upholding the Hearings Officer's conclusion that the appellant was deceitful.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for tampering with evidence and failing to lay appropriate charges.

The union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of business and seeking a related employer declaration after the Red Cross ceased its homemaking operations and the work was reassigned by the Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) to other service providers.

The responding parties brought a Rule 46 request to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board declined to dismiss the section 69 sale of business application on a prima facie basis, finding that it could not conclude without evidence that only work, rather than part of a business, was transferred.

However, the Board dismissed the section 1(4) related employer application, holding that even if common control and direction existed, it would not exercise its discretion to make a declaration because the CCAC's control was regulatory and statutory, and the relationship was a bona fide subcontracting arrangement rather than an artificial erosion of bargaining rights.

The Township of Terrace Bay applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Terrace Bay Police Service, intending to contract policing services from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposed OPP policing model, which involved integrating municipal resources with the Nipigon OPP Detachment.

The Commission found that the proposed staffing levels, supervision, and equipment were adequate and effective.

However, the Commission imposed conditions requiring facility upgrades, including cell renovations and backup power, and mandated monitoring of response times during periods when officers are on call.

The Commission consented to the abolishment of the municipal police service, directing that any unresolved severance issues for existing members proceed to arbitration.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed for discreditable conduct involving the harassment and intimidation of a civilian while on duty.

Due to the inadvertent destruction of a material part of the record, the parties presented a joint submission to vary the penalty to resignation or dismissal within seven days, avoiding the need for a new hearing.

The Commission accepted the joint submission, finding it served the public interest, spared the victim from testifying again, and fell within the appropriate range of penalties.