The Ontario Civilian Police Commission has ruled that a Waterloo Regional Police officer appealing his dismissal will not get a completely new hearing. Instead, the appeal will be a review of the record and decision made by the police services board that terminated his employment. The decision, cited as Robson v. Waterloo Regional Police Service, 2025 ONCPC 35 (CanLII), clarifies the appeal process for officers dismissed due to a disability under Ontario’s Police Services Act.
The case involves former officer Andrew Robson, who was dismissed by the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board on May 15, 2023. The process began nearly two years earlier, in August 2021, when the Chief of Police initiated a proceeding under section 47 of the Police Services Act. This section allows a police board to discharge an officer if, after holding a hearing and considering evidence from two doctors, it determines the officer is physically or mentally disabled, unable to perform their essential duties, and cannot be accommodated without undue hardship.
The proceedings before a three member panel of the Waterloo police board were complex. Mr. Robson at one point consented to a written hearing but later withdrew that consent. The Waterloo Regional Police Association, the union representing officers, sought to intervene on Mr. Robson’s behalf to make submissions about his medical information and his capacity to participate in the hearing. The Board, however, granted the association intervenor status on a more limited basis, allowing it to make submissions only on the legal interpretation of the statute. Noting Mr. Robson did not have a lawyer at the time, the Board appointed an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, to assist the panel and Mr. Robson.
Following a case conference in September 2022, the hearing was adjourned to allow Mr. Robson to provide a medical report regarding his fitness to participate. In February 2023, the Board panel decided not to grant a further adjournment and opted to proceed with a written hearing, which it deemed a sufficient accommodation. A month later, the police association provided new medical information and, along with the amicus, requested another adjournment. The Chief of Police agreed to the request, but the Board panel denied it and proceeded with the written hearing. The Board ultimately received substantive submissions only from the Chief of Police and based its final decision on two medical reports he provided. After this process, the Board issued its decision on May 15, 2023, finding that Mr. Robson was disabled and could not be accommodated, and formally dismissed him.
Mr. Robson appealed his dismissal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission. In his notice of appeal, he alleged that the Board had failed to provide procedural fairness, did not properly accommodate his disability during the hearing process, and made legal and factual errors in its decision. He argued the Board should not have relied on the medical reports it did and misapplied the law.
This led to a crucial preliminary question for the Commission: what form should the appeal take? Mr. Robson, supported by the Waterloo Regional Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario, argued that the Commission should hold a hearing de novo. This would mean conducting a brand new hearing, calling witnesses, and examining all the evidence from scratch, as if the Board’s hearing never happened. They argued that because the police board is the officer’s employer, it could not be an impartial judge of its own conduct in assessing whether it had fulfilled its duty to accommodate. They also pointed out that unlike disciplinary appeals under the Act, section 47 does not explicitly state that appeals must be “on the record,” suggesting the legislature intended a fresh hearing.
The Waterloo Regional Police Services Board and the Chief of Police argued the opposite. They contended the appeal should be “on the record,” meaning the Commission would review the evidence and materials that were before the Board to determine if the Board made a legal or procedural error. They pointed to the language in the Act, which requires the Board to hold a “hearing” before dismissing an officer. They argued it would be illogical for the legislature to mandate a hearing at the board level only for the Commission to ignore it and start over. They also highlighted that the Commission has the power to order the Board to “rehear the matter,” which implies the first hearing before the Board is the primary one.
In a decision released January 9, 2025, the Commission sided with the Police Board and Chief. The three member panel concluded that the Police Services Act, when read in its full context, intended for a full evidentiary hearing to happen first at the police services board level. The subsequent appeal to the Commission is therefore a review of that hearing’s record. The Commission found the requirement for the Board to hold a “hearing” and the power to order a “rehearing” were strong indicators of legislative intent.
The Commission was not persuaded by the argument that the Board, as an employer, is inherently biased. It noted that police boards are given quasi judicial powers in other areas of the Act. The Commission stated that any concerns about the fairness of the specific hearing that the Board conducted for Mr. Robson, including the decision to proceed in writing and limit the police association’s role, are valid grounds for the appeal itself. Mr. Robson can argue that the process was flawed, but those arguments must be made in the context of an appeal on the record, not as a justification for a new trial.
The Commission also addressed arguments related to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The police associations had argued that interpreting the Act to deny a new hearing would conflict with Charter values of equality and freedom of association. The Commission, however, found the Act was not ambiguous and therefore it could not use Charter values to create an alternative interpretation. It noted that arguments about whether the Board’s specific actions were unfair or inconsistent with Charter values could still be raised during the appeal.
With this preliminary issue decided, Mr. Robson’s appeal will move forward as an appeal on the record. The parties will now prepare to make their arguments to the Commission based on the materials from the 2023 hearing, focusing on whether the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board made procedural or substantive errors in its decision to dismiss him.
