30 total
Police misconduct finding revoked due to Hearing Officer's error on burden of proof and insufficient reasons.
The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest during the G20 Summit.
The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by appearing to reverse the burden of proof, requiring the officer to prove he had reasonable and probable grounds.
Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to adequately analyze the officer's subjective belief and whether there was good and sufficient cause for the arrest.
Given the excessive delay of over five years, the Commission revoked the finding of misconduct rather than remitting the matter for a new hearing.
Police officer's misconduct finding for unlawful G20 arrest upheld; one-day suspension confirmed.
Constable Wong appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of a one-day suspension without pay for making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.
The public complainant also appealed the penalty, arguing it was inadequate.
The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law regarding the burden of proof and the essential elements of the misconduct charge.
However, the Commission exercised its power to substitute its own decision, finding that the evidence supported the misconduct charge on a balance of probabilities.
The Commission upheld the one-day suspension penalty as reasonable.
Application by police to access a young person's records for a disciplinary hearing dismissed.
The police service applied for an order under the Youth Criminal Justice Act to disclose a young person's police records for use in a police disciplinary hearing against an officer.
The subject officer also sought access to the records.
The court held that both the police service and the officer must apply for access under sections 119(1)(s) and 123 of the Act.
The court dismissed the application, finding that neither applicant established a valid interest in the records, as the records had no nexus to the alleged misconduct and were not relevant to the young person's credibility or character.
Furthermore, granting access would undermine the privacy protections and principles of diminished moral culpability under the Act.
The court denied the Toronto Police Service and a subject officer access to a complainant's youth records for a disciplinary hearing.
The Toronto Police Service and a police officer sought access to youth records of a young person (L.D.) who was a witness and complainant in a police disciplinary hearing.
The officer was alleged to have assaulted L.D. while in police custody.
The court considered whether access to L.D.'s youth records was permitted under sections 119(1)(s) and 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The court held that the applicants failed to establish a valid or valid and substantial interest in the records, and that permitting access would undermine the proper administration of justice under both the YCJA and the Police Services Act.
The application was dismissed.
Police officer's insubordination conviction quashed; order to change honestly held investigative conclusion deemed unlawful.
The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination under the Code of Conduct.
The officer had refused an order from a superior to change his investigative conclusion on a Motor Vehicle Collision Report, maintaining his honest belief that a civilian driver, rather than a fellow officer, was at fault.
The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.
Furthermore, the Commission held that the order was unlawful because it would have forced the officer to sign a document he believed to be inaccurate, which is tantamount to deceit under the Code of Conduct.
The conviction was substituted with an acquittal.
The appellant police officer was convicted of insubordination for refusing to comply with an order from a superior to change the finding of fault on a motor vehicle collision report.
The officer honestly believed his original conclusion was accurate.
On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.
The appeal was allowed and the conviction was substituted with an acquittal.
Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear disciplinary appeal of a police officer who resigned before penalty.
The Toronto Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the basis that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had resigned and was no longer a police officer.
The appellant had been found guilty of misconduct and resigned on the day the penalty decision was to be delivered, just before it was read.
The Commission held that under the Police Services Act, it only has jurisdiction over current police officers.
Because the appellant had resigned, the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear his appeal.
The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.
Partial indemnity costs of the appeal fixed at $100,000 against the respondent doctor.
The appellants sought $207,612.83 in partial indemnity costs for the appeal against the respondent Dr. Librach, who proposed $101,571.06.
The Court of Appeal fixed the appellants' partial indemnity costs against Dr. Librach at $100,000 inclusive of taxes, plus disbursements, noting that even the respondent's proposed figure was on the high end.
Medical negligence appeal allowed against obstetrician due to inconsistent factual findings on fetal heart monitoring.
The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical negligence action relating to a birth injury that resulted in cerebral palsy.
The trial judge had dismissed the action against the attending obstetrician, nurse, and hospital.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal with respect to the obstetrician, finding that the trial judge made inconsistent findings regarding the interpretability of fetal heart rate monitor outputs and erred in concluding that the bradycardia would have occurred regardless of the application of a vacuum extractor.
A new trial was ordered for the claim against the obstetrician.
The appeal regarding the nurse and hospital was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to attend summary hearing.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
A summary hearing by teleconference was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant failed to attend the hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.