Barbara Morland Wellard

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 arising from an incident where the officer assaulted a handcuffed, intoxicated prisoner.

The Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's application of the principles of sentencing in police discipline cases, including the officer's failure to admit responsibility, the impact of the criminal conviction on his ability to testify in future proceedings, and his subsequent rehabilitation and academic achievements.

The Commission found no manifest error in principle and upheld the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant appealed a finding of not guilty of neglect of duty by a Hearing Officer with respect to a police sergeant.

The appellant alleged the sergeant neglected his duty by failing to promptly arrest her ex-husband for domestic assault and seize his firearms.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence and that the sergeant acted reasonably and professionally in handling the situation, given the appellant's primary concern at the time was retrieving her belongings rather than immediate fear.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police sergeant not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged the sergeant failed to promptly arrest her ex-husband and seize his firearms following her report of a domestic assault.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence, noting that the appellant's primary concern at the time was retrieving her belongings, not immediate fear, and that the sergeant exercised reasonable discretion in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged that the officer failed to promptly arrest her ex-husband and seize his firearms following her report of a domestic assault.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by the evidence.

The Commission held that the officer exercised his discretion reasonably given the circumstances, including the appellant's primary desire to retrieve her belongings and her request that her ex-husband not be arrested in front of their son.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's arguments that the hearing process was procedurally flawed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from a criminal conviction for uttering death threats against his wife and mother-in-law, which he communicated to his young children.

This was his second disciplinary conviction relating to domestic violence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the damage to the police service's reputation, and that the penalty was within the appropriate range.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of 15 days off.

The charge arose from allegations that he made offensive, sexist comments about women while supervising a probationary female officer on a paid duty assignment.

The appellant argued that the hearing officer erred by relying on the uncorroborated testimony of the probationary officer and failing to properly assess credibility.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's credibility determinations were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting the appellant's leadership role, his recent disciplinary history, and the serious nature of making demeaning remarks while in uniform.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and a penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours.

He had refused to answer questions regarding an investigation into the death of an infant, arguing that he was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and had a right to remain silent under the Charter.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the order to answer questions was lawful and that the Charter did not provide a lawful excuse to disobey the order, as any compelled statements could not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings.

The Peel Regional Police Association applied under section 116 of the Police Services Act to determine whether a fitness coordinator was a 'member' of the police service (an employee) or an independent contractor.

The Commission applied the Algonquin Tavern criteria to assess her employment status.

The Commission found that the coordinator operated her own business, had other clients, hired her own staff, and was not subject to the day-to-day control of the police service.

Consequently, the Commission concluded she was a self-employed independent contractor, not an employee.

The County of Wellington applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to abolish the municipal police services of Fergus, Harriston, and Palmerston, transitioning to an integrated Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contract.

The Commission reviewed the proposed staffing, facilities, communications, and equipment, concluding that the OPP arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services.

The Commission granted consent for the abolishment effective September 7, 1999, and ordered that any unresolved severance issues between the Board and the police associations proceed to arbitration if not settled within 45 days.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of discreditable conduct and deceit, as well as the penalties imposed, including dismissal.

The allegations stemmed from off-duty visits to the residence of a woman he had met while on patrol, and an inaccurate statement regarding a CPIC check.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, overturning the convictions for discreditable conduct and deceit due to a lack of clear and convincing evidence and failure to prove intent to deceive.

The penalty for a neglect of duty charge, to which the officer had pled guilty, was reduced from a demotion to a loss of 16 hours' pay.