Vincent Westwick

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over 80.

He sought disclosure of historical maintenance and usage records for the Intoxilyzer used in his breath tests.

The trial judge ordered disclosure under the first party Stinchcombe regime, and a motion judge refused to quash the order.

The Crown and the Ottawa Police Service appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the records were generated by and in the exclusive possession of the police service, making them third party records governed by the O'Connor regime.

The court further held that the accused failed to meet the 'likely relevant' threshold for third party production, as the request was a speculative fishing expedition.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that found him guilty of unsatisfactory work performance and ordered his resignation or dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and ordered his reinstatement.

The Commission found that the Ottawa Police Service failed to strictly comply with its own performance review policies and the mandatory pre-conditions set out in section 29(3) of O. Reg. 268/10 before initiating the chief's complaint.

The hearing officer committed manifest errors of law by finding that substantial compliance was sufficient and that he had discretion to interpret the established procedures, as well as errors of fact by ignoring material evidence favourable to the appellant.

The appellant filed a complaint against a police officer for conducting unlawful CPIC searches.

The police service attempted to resolve the matter informally without the appellant's consent, contrary to the Police Services Act.

At the disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer quashed the charges against the officer, citing the criminal law principle of double jeopardy because the officer had already been counselled.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the informal resolution was a legal nullity due to lack of consent, that double jeopardy does not apply to administrative employment discipline, and that the Hearing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons.

The matter was remitted for a hearing.

The Vanier Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for a ruling that court security costs should not be included in the cost-sharing formula under its policing agreement with the Ottawa Police Services Board, and for repayment of past amounts.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction to interpret the agreement but not to order repayment.

On the merits, the Commission ruled that the broad definition of operating costs in the agreement included the newly imposed statutory costs of providing court security.