Biagio (Bill) Marra

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act for using unnecessary force and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer found that the appellant had pepper-sprayed a handcuffed prisoner in the back of a police cruiser and subsequently failed to document the use of force in his arrest report or a mandatory Use of Force Report.

On appeal, the Commission held that the Hearing Officer's credibility findings and conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission found no manifest error in the determination that the failure to report the use of pepper spray was deliberate and constituted neglect of duty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose from his supervision of a response to a domestic dispute where allegations of assault and threats were made but not properly investigated.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer set unrealistic expectations and that the primary investigating officer was responsible for the investigation's shortcomings.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that as the senior officer on scene, the appellant had a duty to supervise and ensure that domestic violence policies were followed.

The Hearing Officer's conclusion that the appellant neglected his supervisory duties was supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and penalty for the disciplinary offence of being absent without leave.

On Christmas Day, the appellant's supervisor gave him permission to remain at home on standby instead of reporting for his scheduled shift.

The Hearing Officer convicted the appellant, finding that the supervisor lacked authority to grant such leave and the appellant should have known this.

The Commission allowed the appeal and substituted an acquittal, holding that the appellant was entitled to rely on his supervisor's explicit permission as a reasonable excuse for his absence, regardless of whether the supervisor actually possessed the formal authority to grant it.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 18 days forfeiture imposed following a guilty plea to one count of insubordination for conducting numerous unauthorized CPIC queries for personal reasons.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by exceeding a joint submission on penalty and failing to properly weigh dispositional factors.

The Commission found there was no joint submission, as the parties proposed different penalties.

The Commission upheld the penalty, finding the Hearing Officer properly considered the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's disciplinary history, deterrence, and relevant precedents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 18 days forfeiture imposed after he pled guilty to insubordination for conducting unauthorized CPIC queries for personal reasons.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer ignored a joint submission on penalty and imposed an excessive forfeiture.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding there was no joint submission as the parties had proposed different penalties.

The Commission also held that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the relevant sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the officer's prior disciplinary record, and the need for deterrence, and that the penalty was within the acceptable range.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to second-class constable for six months, imposed after he was found guilty of discreditable conduct for attempting to intimidate a citizen into pleading guilty to a traffic charge.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and failed to apply the principle of progressive discipline.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's employment history, and the principle of progressive discipline, and that the penalty was within the reasonable range of options.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 12-hour forfeiture with conditions.

The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant discharged his firearm at the tires of a fleeing suspect vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer fired for the sole purpose of stopping the vehicle, contrary to O. Reg. 546/99.

However, the Commission varied the penalty by removing the condition that the penalty be satisfied within one month and reported to the Professional Standards Bureau, leaving the timing to the unit commander.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty imposed for discharging his firearm at the tires of a fleeing vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer's actions violated the prohibition against firing at a moving vehicle for the sole purpose of stopping it, as he was not in immediate danger when he fired.

The Commission varied the penalty by removing the condition that the forfeiture of twelve hours be completed within one month and reported to the Professional Standards Bureau, leaving the timing to the unit commander.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and the associated penalty of a 12-hour forfeiture.

The conviction arose from an incident where the officer discharged his firearm at the rear tire of a fleeing stolen vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer fired for the sole purpose of stopping the vehicle, contrary to section 8 of O. Reg. 546/99, and not out of an immediate fear for his life, as the vehicle was passing him at the time.

However, the Commission varied the penalty by deleting the Hearing Officer's conditions regarding the specific timing and reporting of the 12-hour forfeiture, finding those matters best left to the officer's unit commander.