C. Osterberg

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board to dismiss him due to disability under s. 47(2) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the appeal under s. 47(5) should proceed as a hearing de novo or an appeal on the record.

Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the Commission concluded that the legislature intended for a full evidentiary hearing to take place before the Board, and that the appeal to the Commission must proceed on the record of the Board's proceeding.

The appellant filed a public complaint regarding a police officer's conduct during a traffic stop.

After the Chief of Police concluded the misconduct was not serious enough to warrant a hearing, the appellant requested a review by the Independent Police Review Director under section 71 of the Police Services Act.

The Director directed the Chief to serve a Notice of Hearing but explicitly instructed the Chief not to apply to the Board for a finding that the delay was reasonable under section 83(17), despite more than six months having passed.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges for noncompliance with section 83(17).

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that section 83(17) applies to the pre-charge period including a section 71 review, and failure to obtain the Board's opinion on the reasonableness of the delay resulted in a loss of jurisdiction.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion imposed after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct, insubordination, and unlawful use of force against an Indigenous civilian.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by failing to give appropriate weight to medical evidence of his PTSD and rehabilitation, failing to consider the civilian's lack of complaint, and failing to apply the principle of progressive discipline.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the dispositional factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage to the reputation of the police service, in determining that demotion was the appropriate penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision demoting her from first-class to third-class constable for one year, followed by one year as second-class constable, after she pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct relating to her refusal to comply with COVID-19 vaccine mandates at a hockey arena and subsequent inappropriate social media posts.

The Commission allowed the appeal in part, finding that making her progression through the ranks conditional on the 'concurrence' of her unit commander improperly granted unfettered discretion.

The condition was varied to 'as confirmed by her unit commander'.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, as the Hearing Officer made no errors in principle in weighing the appellant's rehabilitative efforts, expressions of remorse, or the consistency of the disposition.