Brenda Weese

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The Commission previously revoked that finding and substituted a determination of guilt, finding the respondent engaged in a vexatious course of conduct by repeatedly contacting the appellant after their relationship ended, despite warnings from superiors.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the respondent's lengthy positive work record against the seriousness of the misconduct.

The Commission ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and lose 25 hours of pay, which cannot be satisfied by applying accumulated credits.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The Commission previously revoked that finding and substituted a determination of guilt, finding the respondent engaged in a vexatious course of conduct by repeatedly contacting the appellant after their relationship ended, including while on duty and in uniform.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the respondent's 28-year unblemished record against the seriousness of the misconduct.

The Commission ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and lose 25 hours of pay, which cannot be satisfied by applying accumulated credits.

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

The Commission previously revoked the finding and substituted a determination of guilt, finding the respondent engaged in vexatious behaviour by repeatedly contacting the appellant after their relationship ended, despite warnings from superior officers.

In this penalty decision, the Commission considered the respondent's lengthy positive work record and the seriousness of the misconduct.

The Commission ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and lose 25 hours of pay, which cannot be satisfied by accumulated credits.

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

The respondent had engaged in a course of unwanted contact with the appellant following the end of their relationship, including attending her workplace while on duty and having a child deliver a letter to her home.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer erred by applying subjective elements, such as the appellant's state of mind and the opinions of superior officers, rather than the objective test of whether the conduct would likely discredit the police service.

The Commission revoked the not guilty finding and substituted a conviction for discreditable conduct.

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

The respondent had engaged in a course of unwanted contact with the appellant following the end of their relationship, including attending her workplace and having a child deliver a note to her home while he was on duty.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by applying subjective elements to the objective test for discreditable conduct.

The Commission revoked the finding of not guilty and substituted a conviction for discreditable conduct.

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

The respondent had engaged in a course of unwanted contact with the appellant following the end of their relationship, including attending her workplace and home while on duty and in uniform, despite being counseled by superior officers to stay away.

The Commission denied a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

On the merits, the Commission found the Hearing Officer erred by applying subjective elements to the test for discreditable conduct.

Applying the objective standard of the reasonable expectations of the community, the Commission revoked the finding of not guilty and substituted a conviction for discreditable conduct.

The appellant, a Detective Sergeant with 22 years of service, appealed a penalty imposed after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct stemming from an off-duty impaired driving collision in an unmarked police vehicle.

The hearing officer had imposed a two-year demotion to first class constable, after which the appellant would have to reapply for promotion.

The Commission found that while the two-year demotion was within a reasonable range given the seriousness of the misconduct, the requirement to reapply for promotion was unduly harsh and excessive, particularly given the appellant's exemplary record, the personal tragedies that contributed to the incident, and his successful rehabilitation efforts.

The penalty was varied to remove the requirement to reapply for promotion.

The appellant, a Detective Sergeant with the Ontario Provincial Police, appealed a penalty imposed following a finding of discreditable conduct.

The appellant had pled guilty to impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample after crashing an unmarked police cruiser while off duty.

The hearing officer imposed a two-year demotion to first-class constable, after which the appellant would have to reapply for promotion.

The Commission found that while the two-year demotion was within a reasonable range, the requirement to reapply for promotion was unduly harsh given the appellant's exemplary 22-year record, the personal tragedies that contributed to the incident, and his subsequent rehabilitation efforts.

The penalty was varied to allow automatic reinstatement to the rank of Detective Sergeant after the two-year demotion.

The appellant, a Detective Sergeant with the Ontario Provincial Police, appealed the penalty imposed following a finding of discreditable conduct for impaired driving in an unmarked police vehicle.

The hearing officer had imposed a two-year demotion to first-class constable, after which the appellant would have to reapply for promotion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the two-year demotion was within a reasonable range given the seriousness of the misconduct, the requirement to reapply for promotion was unduly harsh in light of the appellant's exemplary 22-year record and the severe personal tragedies he was experiencing at the time.

The penalty was varied to allow automatic reinstatement to his former rank after the two-year demotion.

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 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, 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 police officer appealed three findings of guilt (one count of insubordination and two counts of deceit) and the penalty of a twelve-month reduction in rank imposed by a Hearing Officer.

The charges arose from the officer's investigation of a domestic assault and his subsequent failure to answer questions during an internal investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding that the order to answer questions served a legitimate public purpose and did not violate the officer's Charter rights.

However, the Commission set aside the two deceit convictions, concluding that the Hearing Officer failed to establish that the officer had an intention to deceive when making his notes or testifying in court.

The penalty was varied to a forfeiture of 24 hours' pay.

The appellant police officer appealed three findings of guilt (one count of insubordination and two counts of deceit) and a penalty of a twelve-month reduction in rank.

The charges arose from his investigation of a domestic assault and his subsequent testimony at the accused's trial, as well as his failure to promptly answer questions ordered by a superior during a disciplinary investigation.

The Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding that the order to answer questions served a legitimate public purpose and did not violate the appellant's Charter rights.

However, the Commission set aside the two deceit convictions, concluding that the Hearing Officer failed to establish clear and convincing evidence of an intention to deceive regarding the officer's notes and court testimony.

The penalty was varied to a forfeiture of 24 hours' pay for the single remaining count of insubordination.

The appellant police officer appealed three findings of guilt (one count of insubordination and two counts of deceit) and the penalty of a twelve-month reduction in rank.

The charges arose from his investigation of a domestic assault and his subsequent testimony at the accused's trial, as well as his failure to promptly obey an order to provide a written report during the ensuing disciplinary investigation.

The Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding that the order to provide a statement for disciplinary purposes did not violate section 7 of the Charter and that the officer failed to comply in a timely manner even after related criminal proceedings concluded.

However, the Commission set aside both deceit convictions, finding the Hearing Officer failed to establish clear and convincing evidence of an intention to deceive regarding the officer's notes and court testimony.

Consequently, the penalty was varied from a one-year demotion to a forfeiture of 24 hours' pay for the single remaining conviction of insubordination.

The Town of Deseronto applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish its municipal police service and enter into a contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposed integrated policing arrangement, staffing levels, and facilities.

The Commission found that the proposal would provide adequate and effective police services, provided that an additional full-time officer is added to the municipal complement, a direct emergency telephone is installed at the local office, firm details of the new detachment facility are provided, and severance issues are resolved.

Consent for abolition was granted subject to these conditions.

The appellant, a detective sergeant with 26 years of service, appealed the disciplinary penalties imposed after being found guilty of two counts of discreditable conduct for submitting false expense claims to an external law enforcement network.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a forfeiture of 20 days' leave for the first count and a six-month reduction in rank to sergeant for the second count.

On appeal, the appellant argued the penalties were excessive and violated the totality principle.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the two infractions were distinct and separated by time, justifying cumulative penalties.

The Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the mitigating factors and that the penalties were consistent with prior cases involving misappropriation by police officers.

The Renfrew Police Services Board and the Town of Renfrew applied for consent to abolish the Renfrew Police Service and integrate policing with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission reviewed the proposed staffing, facilities, and equipment to determine if the new arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services.

Finding the proposal satisfactory subject to certain facility upgrades and conditions, the Commission granted consent for the abolition and directed that any outstanding severance issues proceed to arbitration.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of 15 days' forfeiture of pay for discreditable conduct.

The officer had consumed alcohol while on duty, booked off duty, continued drinking, and then drove an unmarked police cruiser with unauthorized passengers, resulting in a collision and a failed roadside screening test.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty, finding that while the officer had an exemplary record, the penalty was within the acceptable range given the serious nature of the misconduct and the need for general deterrence regarding drinking and driving.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of uttering a death threat against a fellow officer during an altercation at a hockey arena.

He pled guilty to discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and was penalized with a reduction in rank to second-class constable for six months.

The appellant appealed the penalty, arguing it was excessive and failed to account for his excellent service record and the stress of his marital breakdown.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, the need for deterrence, and the principles of progressive discipline, noting a prior recent disciplinary incident.