An Ontario court docket has upheld a call made by the Ontario Civilian Police Fee within the case of a Windsor officer who was discovered responsible of discreditable conduct over a $50 donation to convoy protesters in 2022.
In Could 2023, after a six-day listening to, a Windsor Police Service (WPS) listening to officer ordered Const. Michael Brisco to forfeit 80 hours of pay as a penalty for his donation to the protest towards pandemic mandates.
The donation was made on Feb. 8, 2022, the day after protesters started blocking entry to Windsor’s Ambassador Bridge.
Brisco’s identify was present in a database of donors made public after the crowdfunding web site GiveSendGo was hacked.
Brisco appealed to the fee, difficult the discovering of discreditable conduct and saying the listening to officer failed to use a regular of “clear and convincing proof” in arriving on the discovering. The fee dismissed Brisco’s enchantment.
Brisco subsequently sought judicial overview of the fee’s choice. In his request, Brisco raised 4 submissions on this court docket:
The WPS didn’t meet its burden of demonstrating on clear and convincing proof that the Freedom Convoy protests have been “unlawful”, as described within the discover of listening to, on the time of his donation. The Fee unreasonably concluded the limitation on his freedom of expression below the Constitution was proportionate. The fee erred in failing to deal with his abuse of course of argument. The fee erred in failing to acknowledge and take into account the s. 2(c) Constitution worth of freedom of peaceable meeting.
In a ruling on Wednesday, the Ontario Superior Courtroom of Justice dismissed Brisco’s utility.
Justice J. O’Brien stated the fee didn’t err in accepting the listening to officer’s discovering that the protests have been “unlawful”, as described within the discover of listening to.
“As a result of Mr. Brisco’s problem to the fee’s Constitution s. 2(b) balancing rested on his argument that the protests weren’t ‘unlawful,’ the second floor of overview additionally fails,” O’Brien wrote within the ruling.
“I additional conclude the fee’s choice to not hear the abuse of course of argument for the primary time on enchantment was affordable. Lastly, the fee was not required to contemplate the Constitution worth of freedom of meeting.”
