Amormino v. Police Services Board et al., 2015 ONSC 7165

• Judge: Sanderson, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: November 17, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2015 ONSC 7165;(2015), 341 O.A.C. 267 (DC)

Amormino v. Police Services Bd. (2015), 341 O.A.C. 267 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.042

Detective Constable Salvatore Amormino (OPP) (applicant) v. Police Services Board (OPP), Superintendent Robin D. McElary-Downer (Force Adjudicator-opp), Commissioner of Provincial Police (OPP) J.V.M. (Vince) Hawkes, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Attorney General of Ontario, OPP Association (Karl Walsh) (respondents)

(551/14; 2015 ONSC 7165)

Indexed As: Amormino v. Police Services Board et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Sanderson, J.

November 27, 2015.

Summary:

Amormino, an officer with the Ontario Provincial Police, was charged with misconduct under the Police Services Act. He applied for judicial review, challenging the constitutionality of the disciplinary proceedings, and applied for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending the determination of the judicial review application.

The Ontario Divisional Court, per Sanderson, J., allowed the application for a stay of proceedings.

Administrative Law - Topic 3283

Judicial review - General - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - Grounds - Amormino, an officer with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), was charged with misconduct under the Police Services Act - He applied for judicial review, challenging the constitutionality of the disciplinary proceedings, and arguing that he could not receive a fair and impartial hearing where the adjudicator was a superintendent of the OPP and the prosecutor was usually an OPP officer - Amormino applied for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending the determination of the judicial review application - The Ontario Divisional Court, per Sanderson, J., allowed the application for a stay of proceedings - There was a serious issue to be tried - Although the allegations had been in the public domain for some time and Amormino had already suffered reputational harm and psychological stress, further reputational harm could occur if the stay was not granted - Such reputational harm could not be cured later, even by an award of monetary damages - The balance of convenience favoured a stay being granted - The judicial review was scheduled to take place in about three weeks - Depending on when the court released its decision, the delay in the disciplinary hearing would likely be three months or less - It was unlikely that such a delay would seriously undermine public confidence in the OPP disciplinary process - Until recently, the OPP had consented to the delay that had already occurred.

Administrative Law - Topic 3290

Judicial review - General - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - Considerations - Balance of convenience - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3283 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3291

Judicial review - General - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - Considerations - Irreparable harm - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3283 ].

Cases Noticed:

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 31].

Toth v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1988), 86 N.R. 302; 6 Imm. L.R.(2d) 123 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 31].

Copello v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) et al. (1998), 152 F.T.R. 110 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Board of Education of York Region et al. v. Markham (Town) et al. (1992), 60 O.A.C. 212 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

Douglas v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 776, refd to. [para. 31].

Douglas v. Canada (Attorney General), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 517; 2014 FC 1115, refd to. [para. 31].

Marler v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2009), 247 O.A.C. 68 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

Browne v. Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services et al. (2001), 151 O.A.C. 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Cannon v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Assistant Commissioner) (1997), 139 F.T.R. 91 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

Trimm v. Durham Regional Police Force et al., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 582; 81 N.R. 197; 24 O.A.C. 357, refd to. [para. 57].

Burnham v. Toronto Police Force et al., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 572; 81 N.R. 207; 24 O.A.C. 367, refd to. [para. 57].

Trumbley and Pugh et al. v. Toronto Police Force et al., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 577; 81 N.R. 212; 24 O.A.C. 372, refd to. [para. 57].

Mussani v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (2004), 193 O.A.C. 23; 74 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Schmidt (M.) (2014), 318 O.A.C. 53; 2014 ONCA 188, refd to. [para. 60].

Counsel:

Rocco Galati, for the applicant;

Christopher Diana, for the respondents, Superintendent Robin D. McElary-Downer, Commission of Provincial Police (OPP) J.V.N. (Vince) Hawkes, Minister of Community and Safety Correctional Services.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 17, 2015, before Sanderson, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who delivered the following reasons for decision on November 27, 2015.