|
Police - Neglect of Duty. Clarke v. Toronto Police Service 43 Division
In Clarke v. Toronto Police Service 43 Division (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a JR, here against the Independent Police Review Director's review (dismissed) of the police chief's disposition of his police complaint (dismissed).
Here the court considered 'neglect of duty' under the (old) PSA:Neglect of duty
[23] Citing Provincial Constable K.M. Soley and the Ontario Provincial Police, 1966 CanLII 17303 (ONCPC), the Director noted that to establish neglect of duty, it must be shown that: (i) the officer was required to perform a duty; (ii) the officer failed to discharge the duty promptly and diligently; and (iii) the officer had no lawful excuse, good or sufficient cause, or adequate reason, to excuse the failure to do so. . Mohamud v. Law Enforcement Complaints Agency
In Mohamud v. Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (Ont Divisional Ct, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here against the decision of "the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), which is now the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA)".
The court considered the test for police neglect of duty:[45] The Director considered the correct legal test for assessing the offence of Neglect of Duty, as set out in Korchinski v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2022 ONSC 6074 (Div. Ct.), at para 42. To establish Neglect of Duty the evidence must demonstrate the existence of three elements: (i) a duty existed; (ii) the officer failed to promptly and diligently discharge the relevant duty; and (iii) there is no lawful excuse, good or sufficient cause or adequate reason to excuse the failure to discharge the duty.
|
