Charles B. Rycroft

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 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 appellants, two police detectives, appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act for consuming alcohol while on duty and neglecting their duty during a surveillance operation.

The only issue on appeal was whether they were on duty at the relevant time.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that clear and convincing evidence, including sign-in sheets, authorization for a double shift, and the use of police vehicles, established they were on duty.

The appeal against the penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time for each offence was also dismissed, as the penalty appropriately balanced the officer's unblemished record with the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty.

Two police officers appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Code of Conduct for consuming alcohol while on duty and leaving their detail without permission.

The appellants argued the Hearing Officer erred in finding they were on duty at the relevant time.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding clear and convincing evidence—including sign-in sheets, authorization for a double shift, and the officers' own notes—supported the conclusion that they were on duty.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time for each offence, emphasizing the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty and the need for general deterrence.

Two police officers appealed their disciplinary convictions for consuming alcohol while on duty and neglect of duty, arguing the Hearing Officer erred in finding they were on duty at the relevant time.

One officer also appealed his penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding there was clear and convincing evidence that the officers were on duty, including authorization for a double shift, use of police vehicles, and sign-in sheets.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, balancing the officer's unblemished record against the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty.

The Town of Prescott and the Prescott Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Prescott Police Service and transition to an integrated policing arrangement with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission found that the proposed arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services to the community.

However, the Commission refused to consent to the abolition at this time because there was no agreement on severance pay for uniformed members and unresolved disputes regarding conditional offers of employment, particularly the OPP's refusal to hire one specific officer.

The Commission set out conditions under which it would reconsider its decision, including submitting the employment dispute to binding arbitration.

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, 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 appellant, a police officer, appealed three findings of insubordination for refusing to shave his beard in violation of a police services board by-law and a standing order of the Chief of Police.

The appellant argued the policy was unreasonable and therefore not a lawful order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the board had the statutory authority to establish policies regarding personal appearance, making the order lawful.

The Commission distinguished between labour relations matters and police discipline, concluding that the appellant's refusal to obey the lawful order constituted insubordination.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The officers had responded to a call about suspicious persons and recovered a baseball bat and pool cue, but did not immediately report these findings to dispatch, unaware that another unit was investigating a nearby assault involving a baseball bat.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the penalties, finding that the officers exercised reasonable discretion based on the limited information available to them at the time, and could not be judged with the benefit of hindsight.

The City of Woodstock and the Townships of Blandford-Blenheim, East Zorra-Tavistock, and Norwich applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to amalgamate the police services of Woodstock, Norwich, and Tavistock into a new Oxford Community Police Service.

The Commission reviewed the proposed staffing, facilities, communications, equipment, budget, and transition plans.

Despite public concerns regarding the process and a preference for retaining the OPP in rural areas, the Commission found the proposal sound and capable of providing adequate and effective policing.

The amalgamation was approved, with the effective date set for February 1, 1999, to allow for proper transition planning.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent 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 Chatham, Tilbury, Wallaceburg, and Dresden.

This abolition was proposed to establish a single new Chatham-Kent Police Service following the amalgamation of 22 communities into a single-tier municipality.

The Commission reviewed the comprehensive proposal developed by a Policing Task Force, which included detailed plans for staffing, facilities, communications, equipment, and budget.

The Commission found that the proposed arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services, noting that all existing municipal officers and civilian staff would be offered employment with the new service, thereby satisfying severance requirements.

The Commission granted consent to the abolition, effective in two phases, subject to the submission of a final report on implementation details.