Robert Fredericks

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had issued two sets of summonses to a motorist but only served one set, leading to the motorist being convicted in absentia on the unserved charges and wrongfully incarcerated for five days.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the evidence supported the conviction and that the officer's deliberate dishonesty, lack of remorse, and the severe consequences to the innocent motorist justified the penalty of dismissal.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that the collective agreement did not require the respondent City to pay the Ontario Health Premium for its full-time employees.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, following recent Court of Appeal jurisprudence on similar grievances.

The Court found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement language, concluding that the parties did not intend the employer to pay the income tax-based premium, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying accidental death and 'killed in the line of duty' benefits to the estate of a firefighter who died of renal cancer caused by occupational exposure to toxic substances.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's application of common law insurance principles to conclude the death was not accidental was incorrect and rendered the decision patently unreasonable.

The Court found that the firefighter's death from an occupational illness was unexpected and not caused solely by natural causes, thus qualifying as an accidental death and occurring in the line of duty.

The arbitrator's award was quashed and the employer was ordered to pay the benefits.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 18 days forfeiture imposed after he pled guilty to insubordination for conducting unauthorized CPIC queries for personal reasons.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer ignored a joint submission on penalty and imposed an excessive forfeiture.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding there was no joint submission as the parties had proposed different penalties.

The Commission also held that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the relevant sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the officer's prior disciplinary record, and the need for deterrence, and that the penalty was within the acceptable range.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 18 days forfeiture imposed following a guilty plea to one count of insubordination for conducting numerous unauthorized CPIC queries for personal reasons.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by exceeding a joint submission on penalty and failing to properly weigh dispositional factors.

The Commission found there was no joint submission, as the parties proposed different penalties.

The Commission upheld the penalty, finding the Hearing Officer properly considered the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's disciplinary history, deterrence, and relevant precedents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision that he lacked jurisdiction to proceed with a disciplinary charge of discreditable conduct against a police officer.

The Commission had previously directed the Chief of Police to initiate a hearing within 60 days, but the charge was served 256 days later.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was a final decision subject to appeal.

The Commission granted leave to appeal and held that the 60-day direction was not a mandatory condition that invalidated the proceedings if breached.

The Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision, found no abuse of process due to delay, and ordered the Chief of Police to proceed with the charge.

The appellant, a senior police officer, appealed a penalty of forfeiture of three days imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct for misusing police resources.

While on duty, the appellant used police resources to pursue a personal grievance against members of another police service.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer considered the appropriate mitigating and aggravating factors and that the penalty was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted touching directed at a female civilian co-worker.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent gender sensitivity counseling.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's decision to deny an adjournment request, finding the appellant had ample time to prepare.

Finally, the Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the seriousness of the workplace sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for domestic assault and indecent exposure, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted touching directed at a female civilian co-worker.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by denying an adjournment request and that the penalty was excessive.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the adjournment denial was reasonable given the history of delays and lack of medical evidence.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the seriousness of the workplace sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for criminal offences, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

A motion to introduce new evidence of post-termination counseling was also denied.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and touching directed at a civilian employee.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it failed the Palmer test.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's decision to deny an adjournment, noting the appellant's history of delays and failure to justify the request.

Finally, the Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, emphasizing the seriousness of the sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

The appellant appealed a decision declining court jurisdiction over a dispute regarding long-term disability benefit entitlements.

The motions judge concluded that the essential character of the dispute arose from the interpretation, application, or administration of a collective agreement, meaning it must be resolved by arbitration.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the long-term disability plan explicitly barred actions against the insurer and had to be read in conjunction with the collective agreement for unionized employees.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Chief of Police and the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) regarding a complaint against two police officers.

The Chief of Police declined to deal with the complaint because it was filed more than six months after the incident.

The applicant then requested a review by OCCPS, but missed the 30-day statutory deadline.

OCCPS determined it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, confirming that legislative amendments removed OCCPS's discretion to extend the deadline and finding the Chief's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a disciplinary penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct related to cocaine possession and use.

The Hearing Officer had rejected a joint submission on penalty that proposed a 'last chance' agreement involving demotion and strict conditions, citing concerns about the officer's credibility and the source of the drugs.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the officer's cocaine addiction as a handicap requiring accommodation, and relied on speculative conclusions unsupported by evidence.

The penalty was varied to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant, a police officer with 16 years of service, appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer following his guilty plea to two counts of discreditable conduct related to cocaine possession and use.

The misconduct occurred while the appellant was working as an undercover drug operative and suffering from an addiction.

At the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor and defence presented a joint submission proposing a 'last chance agreement' with strict conditions, including demotion and drug testing, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the appellant's addiction as a handicap requiring accommodation, relied on speculative conclusions unsupported by evidence, and imposed an unduly harsh penalty.

The Commission varied the penalty to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, developed a cocaine addiction and was criminally convicted of simple possession.

He pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

At the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor and defence presented a joint submission proposing a 'last chance' agreement with strict conditions, including demotion and drug testing.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission and ordered the appellant to resign or be dismissed.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred by relying on speculative conclusions and failing to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate the appellant's addiction.

The Commission varied the penalty to reflect the joint submission.

The defendant employer brought a motion for leave to appeal an order refusing to strike out the statement of claim against it.

The employer argued that at common law, an employer cannot be impleaded by an employee seeking a remedy for their union's breach of the duty of fair representation.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the common law is dynamic and a plaintiff should not be denied the possibility of establishing a right to a remedy at the pleadings stage.