Barbara Morland Wellard

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed, arguing the disciplinary hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that the Hearing Officer should have accepted his alternate version of events.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or in the penalty of dismissal, noting the Crown had not requested a stay of the disciplinary proceedings.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The appellant appealed the disciplinary conviction and penalty, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to stay the proceedings absent a Crown request, and holding that the Hearing Officer properly relied on the criminal conviction without re-litigating the facts.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as there was no manifest error in principle.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct arising from his arrest of a tow truck driver for uttering threats.

The Hearing Officer found that the appellant acted unprofessionally, failed to communicate effectively, and improperly used his power of arrest due to a prior history of conflict with the driver.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, holding that the Hearing Officer's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellant's conduct was an abuse of authority that discredited the police service.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting reprimand.

The misconduct arose from an interaction with a tow truck driver, during which the appellant arrested the driver for uttering threats.

The hearing officer found the appellant's conduct unprofessional and an abuse of the power of arrest.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's decision, finding that the hearing officer's credibility assessments were supported by the evidence and that the appellant's actions were improper and discreditable.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct arising from his arrest of a tow truck operator following a verbal altercation at a breakdown scene.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant acted unprofessionally, failed to communicate effectively, and improperly used his power of arrest after a dispute over towing dispatch.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the Hearing Officer's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellant's conduct in executing the arrest was improper and discreditable.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a three-month gradation in rank.

The charges arose from a conversation in which the appellant allegedly made comments to a subordinate officer that constituted a reprisal for a previous human rights complaint and a retraction of a prior apology.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding a reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence of discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission found the penalty was harsh and excessive because the Hearing Officer improperly considered expunged informal discipline records.

The penalty was reduced to a loss of 6 days or 48 hours time.

The Appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a three-month gradation in rank.

The charges arose from a conversation with a subordinate officer who had previously filed a human rights complaint against him.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's arguments regarding a reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the conviction, finding ample evidence that the Appellant's conduct constituted a reprisal.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in considering expunged informal discipline records, and reduced the penalty to a loss of 48 hours' time.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a three-month demotion in rank.

The charges arose from a conversation in which the appellant implicitly told a subordinate officer, who had previously filed a human rights complaint against him, that he was not welcome back to the platoon.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's argument that the Hearing Officer's subsequent employment with the Commission created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding ample evidence that the appellant's conduct was a reprisal that would bring discredit to the police service.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing it to a loss of 48 hours' pay, because the Hearing Officer erred by considering expunged informal discipline records as a prior record.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed findings of guilt on seven counts of misconduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved unauthorized use of the CPIC system for personal reasons to track his former common-law spouse, failing to report her breach of bail conditions, and improperly using his position to obtain an occurrence report.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding they were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty, finding that dismissal was appropriate given the officer's disciplinary history and the serious, repeated abuse of the CPIC system.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed findings of guilt on seven counts of misconduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved unauthorized use of the CPIC and MANIX systems for personal reasons related to his former common-law spouse, failing to report her breach of bail conditions, and improperly using his position to obtain an occurrence report.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite some inaudible passages in the hearing transcripts, there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of guilt.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's prior disciplinary record, the seriousness of misusing police databases, and the need for deterrence.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on seven counts of misconduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct charges stemmed from his unauthorized use of the CPIC system to conduct numerous inquiries on his former common-law spouse and her new partner, as well as failing to report her breach of bail conditions and improperly using his position to obtain an occurrence report.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's prior disciplinary record and the serious nature of using CPIC for personal reasons.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on four counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charges arose from inappropriate comments and touching of a sexual nature involving four women, including members of the public and an undercover officer.

The Commission set aside one conviction involving a civilian volunteer, finding the brief physical contact did not amount to discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission upheld the remaining three convictions, finding the hearing officer's credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's lack of judgment, failure to accept responsibility, poor employment record, and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on four counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charges stemmed from inappropriate comments and touching of a sexual nature involving four women, including members of the public and an undercover officer.

The Commission set aside one conviction involving a brief physical contact with a civilian volunteer, finding it did not amount to discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission upheld the remaining three convictions, finding the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the appellant's lack of judgment, failure to accept responsibility, poor employment record, and the compelling psychiatric evidence indicating no realistic possibility of rehabilitation.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on four counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charges arose from inappropriate comments and touching of a sexual nature involving four women, including members of the public and an undercover officer.

The Commission set aside one conviction involving a brief physical contact with a civilian volunteer, finding it did not amount to discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission upheld the remaining three convictions, finding the hearing officer's credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's lack of judgment, failure to accept responsibility, and poor rehabilitative prospects.

The appellant, an Acting Sergeant, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty for failing to ensure that appropriate reports were submitted following a serious incident involving a tactical takedown of a man mistakenly believed to be carrying a concealed weapon.

The appellant argued there was no clear policy or system requiring him to check reports against calls for service.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that a clear policy existed requiring supervisors to ensure complete reports are filed, and that the failure to do so in such a serious incident warranted the finding of Neglect of Duty.

The appellant, an Acting Sergeant, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty for failing to ensure that appropriate reports were submitted following a police response to a concealed weapon call.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer did not err in concluding that supervisors have a duty to ensure complete and signed reports are filed, and that the failure to do so in this serious incident constituted Neglect of Duty.

The Appellant, an Acting Sergeant, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty for failing to ensure that appropriate reports were submitted following a serious police incident involving a tactical takedown of a man mistakenly believed to be armed.

The Appellant argued there was no clear policy or training requiring supervisors to check reports against calls for service.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, upholding the Hearing Officer's finding that supervisors have a clear duty to ensure complete reports are filed, and the failure to do so in this serious incident constituted Neglect of Duty.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he was found guilty of discreditable conduct.

The disciplinary charge followed a criminal conviction for common assault against a handcuffed and intoxicated prisoner.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by failing to give proper weight to his rehabilitation, academic achievements, and good character, and by treating his failure to admit responsibility as an aggravating factor.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding no manifest error in principle.

The Commission noted that the appellant's criminal conviction would seriously impair his credibility and usefulness as a witness in future criminal proceedings, which is an essential duty of a police officer.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer following a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from an incident where the officer assaulted a handcuffed and intoxicated prisoner, resulting in a criminal conviction for common assault.

The Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's application of disciplinary penalty principles, including the officer's subsequent rehabilitation, academic achievements, and the impact of his criminal conviction on his ability to testify in future proceedings.

The Commission found no manifest error in principle in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the officer's criminal conviction and failure to accept responsibility rendered him unfit for continued service, and dismissed the appeal.