Bill Marra

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The misconduct involved the misappropriation of over $4,000 in public funds through false expense claims and forged receipts for personal vehicle repairs.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty, concluding that the deliberate and protracted nature of the misconduct, combined with a lack of remorse and restitution, justified dismissal.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The charges related to the misappropriation of public funds through the misuse of police-issued credit cards for personal motorcycle repairs, submitting false receipts for vehicle repairs, and failing to account for cash requisitioned for an informant.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the serious breach of public trust, lack of restitution, and absence of significant mitigating factors.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The misconduct involved the misappropriation of over $4,000 in public funds through the improper use of service credit cards for personal motorcycle repairs, submitting false receipts for vehicle repairs, and failing to account for cash requisitioned for an informant.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the protracted and premeditated nature of the misconduct, the breach of public trust, and the absence of significant mitigating factors.