Alok Mukherjee

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was found guilty of discreditable conduct for leaving a store with unpaid merchandise and was dismissed from the police service.

He appealed the conviction and penalty.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding no reason to interfere with the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and intent.

However, the Commission found the penalty of dismissal excessive, as the Hearing Officer failed to consider mitigating factors such as the appellant's guilty plea, unblemished record, and likelihood of rehabilitation.

The penalty was reduced to a reduction in rank for one year.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 72 hours forfeiture of time off following a guilty plea to discreditable conduct for using profane, abusive, or insulting language related to sex toward a female colleague.

The Commission upheld the finding that the single incident constituted a poisoned environment and that the hearing officer appropriately considered the impact on the victim.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to 45 hours forfeiture, finding that the police service's management shared responsibility for allowing a workplace culture of inappropriate conversation without having a sexual harassment policy in place.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty of 30 hours' forfeited pay for wilfully or carelessly destroying a police service document.

The officer had shredded a memo addressed to him, believing it was his personal copy, though the respondent argued it was the official copy for his performance file.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the officer acted reasonably in assuming the unmarked memo was his to dispose of, and set aside the conviction and penalty.

The Palmerston Police Services Board charged Chief Moyle with misconduct 15 months after the facts first came to its attention.

Chief Moyle brought a preliminary motion to quash the charges, arguing they were not laid within the six-month limitation period under subsection 60(12) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found it had jurisdiction to hear the motion and held that the Board failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The charges were quashed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty imposed by a Hearing Officer and confirmed by the Police Services Board for neglect of duty and deceit.

The officer had pled guilty and a joint submission recommended a penalty of 5 days' loss of pay.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission and imposed a penalty of 18 days' loss of pay, referencing two withdrawn charges in his reasons.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to provide clear reasons for departing from the joint submission and improperly considered extraneous information from the withdrawn charges.

The Commission substituted the jointly recommended penalty.

The appellant police officer was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80mg and subsequently found guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act, resulting in a penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay.

The officer appealed the disciplinary penalty, seeking an adjournment pending his criminal appeal and a reduction of the penalty to three days' pay.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the request for an adjournment, finding that the employer had the right to proceed with discipline once a conviction was registered.

The Commission also upheld the five-day pay forfeiture, emphasizing the need for exemplary penalties for police officers who engage in drinking and driving.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct following an altercation at a bar where he restrained a bouncer who was attempting to break up a fight involving another officer.

The appellant appealed the conviction and the penalty of a two-day pay forfeiture.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the adjudicator's acceptance of the bouncer's evidence was reasonable.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to a one-day pay forfeiture, noting the appellant's clear disciplinary record and his lesser culpability compared to the other officer involved.

The Towns of Port Elgin and Southampton applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for approval to amalgamate their respective police services.

Following a comprehensive review process by a Steering Committee, the municipalities proposed a joint service with a shared budget, a single Chief of Police, and a combined Police Services Board.

The Commission found the proposal well-founded and supported by the community, though it noted that the Act does not authorize the creation of an interim board with decision-making authority.

The Commission approved the amalgamation effective January 4, 1995.