Sharon C. Wilmot

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application under section 119(1)(q) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to access youth records pertaining to the complainant's outstanding criminal charges.

The court held that youth records relating to outstanding charges are disclosable to the defence to make full answer and defence, as the access period begins when the record is created.

The application was granted on consent, allowing the matter to proceed to a third-party records application under the Criminal Code.

The applicant sought extensive disclosure from the Crown and Peel Regional Police (PRP) under Stinchcombe and O'Connor, and a sealing order for application materials.

The disclosure requests stemmed from suspicions of targeting and police misconduct related to a vehicle stop and subsequent arrest for firearms and drug offences.

The court denied most disclosure requests where the information did not exist (e.g., historical CPIC snapshots, specific informant recruitment policies) or where likely relevance was not met.

However, the court ordered the production of officer notes and "will say" statements regarding an off-camera interview where the applicant was asked to become a confidential informant, and specific notes of an officer related to a BOLO broadcast.

The sealing order request was denied as the applicant failed to meet the Dagenais/Mentuck test for restricting the open court principle.

The applicant sought judicial review of a police service's decision to disclose non-conviction information on a vulnerable sector check.

The applicant argued the reconsideration process was procedurally unfair because the police did not disclose the underlying information relied upon to make the decision, preventing the applicant from knowing the case to meet.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that procedural fairness required the police to provide access to the relevant information before the applicant submitted written submissions for the reconsideration.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter for a new reconsideration by a different decision-maker.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of Discreditable Conduct and Deceit, and the subsequent penalty of termination.

The misconduct involved submitting numerous false health benefit claims for services allegedly provided by a non-existent massage therapist.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments of the defence witnesses were reasonable and that she did not improperly shift the burden of proof.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of termination, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the serious impact on the police service's reputation and the deliberate, repeated nature of the deceit.

The Crown and Peel Regional Police applied for access to a video exhibit previously ordered sealed in a sexual assault and sexual interference prosecution.

The video, likely child pornography, was in defence counsel's possession and had been sealed by a prior court order.

The applicants sought access for investigation and potential use in the prosecution.

The court, relying on R. v. Murray and Rule 5.1-2A of the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct, held that physical evidence documenting a crime, even if it contains both inculpatory and exculpatory elements, must be disclosed to authorities.

The application for access to the sealed exhibit was granted.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought an application for the disclosure of police disciplinary records relating to two officers involved in the investigation.

The court held that the disciplinary file of an officer who would not be called as a Crown witness was not first party disclosure and did not meet the 'likely relevant' threshold for third party records.

For the undercover officer who would testify, the court ordered the police to ascertain whether specific additional disciplinary records existed, but otherwise dismissed the application.

The appellant, a police officer, brought an appeal under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

Before the Commission rendered its decision, the parties advised that the appellant had retired from the respondent police service.

Consequently, the Commission determined it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter and quashed the appeal.

The appellant, a police superintendent acting as Incident Commander during the 2010 G20 Summit, appealed convictions for professional misconduct relating to the mass arrests of protestors at the Novotel Hotel and the intersection of Queen and Spadina.

The Hearing Officer found the arrests were unlawful and constituted an unnecessary exercise of authority, and that the appellant committed discreditable conduct by leaving detainees in inclement weather.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law regarding reasonable and probable grounds and the ancillary powers doctrine.

On the cross-appeals regarding penalty, the Commission found the original penalties (a reprimand and forfeiture of 10 days off) were unreasonable given the severity of the Charter breaches.

The Commission varied the penalties to the forfeiture of 20 days off for each of the two unlawful arrest convictions, to be served consecutively with the 20 days off forfeited for discreditable conduct.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to change a final custody order that had granted him sole custody of his two sons and required them to attend a reunification program.

The younger son had repeatedly run away and refused to live with the appellant or attend the program.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the son's extreme resistance constituted a material change in circumstances and that it was no longer in his best interests to enforce the custody order.

The court also dismissed the son's cross-appeal seeking a declaration that he had withdrawn from parental control, finding the motion judge's order that no person had custody or access rights over him was sufficient.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a reprimand for the superintendent's role in ordering the unlawful arrest and detention of the complainants.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for such unprecedented and highly scrutinized Charter breaches was of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The superintendent had been found guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and discreditable conduct for ordering the 'kettling' and unlawful arrest of protestors, and was penalized with a forfeiture of 30 days off.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for a senior commander in these unprecedented circumstances is of significant importance to the policing profession and the public.

Two police officers appealed findings of misconduct and penalties arising from the unlawful arrest of a civilian during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct findings, concluding the Hearing Officer reasonably assessed credibility and correctly found the officers lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest and used excessive force.

However, the Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating one officer's untruthful testimony as an aggravating factor for penalty.

The penalty for the arresting officer was reduced from a two-month to a one-month demotion.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for allegedly using unnecessary force during the G20 summit.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the Notice of Hearing served on the officer differed from the draft notice approved by the Police Services Board in a delay application under section 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's role under section 83(17) is limited to determining whether the delay in serving the notice was reasonable, not approving the specific wording of the charge.

The Commission revoked the stay and remitted the matter for a re-hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Independent Police Review Director and the Chief of Police classifying an unjustified strip search by a police officer as misconduct 'not of a serious nature' under the Police Services Act.

The applicant argued that an unjustified strip search must always be classified as serious misconduct and that the failure to hold a disciplinary hearing breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Director and Chief have statutory discretion to assess the seriousness of misconduct based on the specific circumstances.

The court found the decisions were reasonable given the facts, including that the search was conducted privately, without touching, and in accordance with policy, and that no hearing was required once the misconduct was reasonably deemed not serious.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision imposing the penalty of immediate dismissal following his guilty plea to a charge of use of unnecessary force.

The officer had assaulted a handcuffed, intoxicated prisoner in the back of a scout car after daring the prisoner to spit in his face.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors, including the officer's prior disciplinary record and the egregious nature of the assault.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's decision to be reasonable and confirmed the penalty of immediate dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for insubordination after discharging his firearm at a fleeing vehicle, contrary to a Toronto Police Service procedure.

The appellant argued he had a lawful excuse due to an honest, subjective belief that his life was in imminent danger.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that a lawful excuse requires both a subjective belief and objectively reasonable actions.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the appellant's actions were not objectively reasonable, as he had removed himself from the imminent threat before firing.

The Appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to deliver a Notice of Appeal regarding a police discipline matter.

The Respondent officer argued the appeal was out of time under the Commission's Rules.

The Commission found that the Appellant had formed an intention to appeal within the relevant time period and that the justice of the case required an extension.

The motion was granted, allowing the Notice of Appeal to be filed nunc pro tunc.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer, which imposed a forfeiture of five days' pay on the respondent officer for discreditable conduct related to an assault during the G20 Summit.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the matters raised were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large, satisfying the third branch of the test for leave to appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's appeal for failure to serve a Notice of Appeal within the thirty-day statutory period under the Police Services Act.

The complainant faxed the Notice of Appeal on the thirtieth day, but under section 96(2) of the Act, faxed documents are deemed received on the following day.

The Commission held that the appeal was served on the thirty-first day and that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit.

The appeal was dismissed as untimely.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing misconduct charges against two police officers for allegedly making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The appellant had been arrested for wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence after officers observed him wearing an orange bandana over his face.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges based entirely on finding the appellant not credible, without analyzing the legal elements of a lawful arrest under the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons inadequate, as they failed to address whether the officers had subjective and objective reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing before a different Hearing Officer.