Dave Edwards

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against four police officers for failing to make an approved screening device (ASD) demand following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Hearing Officer had ruled that the driver's admission of alcohol consumption was a legally compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act and could not be used to form reasonable suspicion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found this ruling unreasonable, as there was no evidence the driver subjectively believed he was legally compelled to report the accident.

The Commission revoked the dismissal for the two first-responding officers and remitted the matter for continuation, but confirmed the dismissal for the two later-arriving officers who could not have made a demand 'forthwith'.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of misconduct and demoted.

His association attempted to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory period but mistakenly couriered it to the wrong address.

The appellant brought a motion, on consent of the respondent police service, for an order that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the late service.

The Commission held that the 30-day time limit in s. 87(1) of the Police Services Act is substantive and cannot be waived.

However, the Commission found that the method of service is procedural.

Exercising its power under its Rules of Practice, the Commission waived the rule regarding the correct address and deemed the notice validly served within the appeal period.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-month demotion and mandatory anger management.

The misconduct charge arose from allegations that the appellant physically assaulted his spouse on three occasions.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence, erred in assessing credibility, and lacked a sufficient evidentiary foundation for her findings.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the legal tests for credibility and standard of proof, and that her factual findings were reasonable and supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly considered relevant factors, including the seriousness of domestic violence and the appellant's employment history.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty and the resulting penalty of a 40-hour forfeiture.

The misconduct charge arose from the appellant's failure to properly investigate a domestic violence complaint reported by a member of the public.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility and in concluding that there was sufficient information to warrant further investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer applied the correct legal principles in assessing credibility and that his findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting that the Hearing Officer appropriately weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors, including the seriousness of failing to properly respond to a domestic violence complaint.

The Appellant police officer appealed to the Commission regarding a transfer and a request for restitution of 34 days' pay, which he alleged were disciplinary actions imposed without complying with Part V of the Police Services Act.

The Respondent argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the actions were administrative and the appeal was out of time.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction, as the actions arose inferentially from the disciplinary scheme.

The Commission dismissed the appeal as premature, struck down the Record of Informal Discipline, and directed the Commissioner to hold a hearing under section 76(9) of the Act.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct and a penalty of demotion arising from an allegation that he referred to his police baton using a racial slur.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to apply the proper legal test for credibility equally to both the appellant and the complainant.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's credibility findings unreasonable as they ignored objective evidence, such as swipe card records, that contradicted the complainant's version of events.

The finding of misconduct was vacated and a finding of not guilty was substituted.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved forcing entry into a neighbour's home while intoxicated to confront his son, and subsequently actively resisting arrest by fellow officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's decision reasonable given the appellant's history of progressive discipline for alcohol-related misconduct, failure to rehabilitate despite multiple opportunities, and the serious damage to the reputation of the police service.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of immediate dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after being found guilty of multiple counts of misconduct, including neglect of duty, breach of confidence, and insubordination.

The misconduct involved a prolonged pattern of unauthorized and unsafe interactions with a confidential informant, including disclosing sensitive operational information.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider character evidence and his potential for rehabilitation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and the conclusion that the appellant's usefulness as a police officer had been completely annulled were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct for stealing gas and supplies from the detachment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer made significant errors by failing to consider substantial mitigating character evidence and the appellant's successful rehabilitation for PTSD and alcoholism.

The penalty was varied to a demotion to fourth-class constable with strict conditions for ongoing psychological monitoring.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and neglect of duty, as well as a six-month demotion penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's decision, applying the Dunsmuir standard of review.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons regarding the use of force and the failure to provide medical assistance were insufficient and unreasonable, revoking those convictions.

However, the Commission upheld the conviction for neglect of duty regarding the failure to document the complainant's injury.

The penalty was consequently reduced to a forfeiture of three days' pay.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from sergeant to first-class constable for a minimum of one year, imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of discreditable conduct for misappropriating funds from a unit bank account.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence regarding his repayment efforts, failed to consider his medical and personal circumstances, and imposed a disproportionate penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed these grounds, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable and the penalty within the acceptable range.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal in part to vary the wording of the penalty, finding that making reinstatement conditional on a Unit Commander's recommendation was problematic and lacked clear standards.

The penalty was varied to allow the appellant to participate in the normal promotional process after the one-year demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of a one-year demotion from first-class to second-class constable, imposed after he was found guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved falsely recording an authorized missed lunch break and repeatedly refusing to surrender a personal journal referenced in his memo book.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably considered the officer's prior disciplinary history, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the principles of progressive discipline in determining the penalty.

The Wikwemikong Tribal Police Service brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by a First Nations Constable from a finding of discreditable conduct.

The moving party argued that the Ontario Civilian Police Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because First Nations Constables are explicitly excluded from the definition of 'police officer' under the Police Services Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that its statutory authority to hear appeals under section 87 of the Act applies only to police officers and complainants.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

Three police officers appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty and discreditable conduct arising from their entry into an apartment without a Feeney endorsement or valid consent.

The officers argued the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to admit fresh evidence suggesting the public complainant had set them up, and by misinterpreting police service policies regarding consent.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer had no statutory authority to reopen the hearing to admit fresh evidence after rendering a finding of guilt.

The Commission also held that the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the person who permitted entry was not an 'occupant' capable of giving lawful consent was reasonable.

Constable Pigeau appealed a finding of guilt for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and the resulting penalty of a loss of 16 hours off and directed training.

The misconduct arose from an incident where the officer made physical contact with a pedestrian he suspected of public intoxication, leading to an altercation and an unnecessary arrest.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upheld the finding of misconduct, applying a reasonableness standard of review and finding that the officer lacked legal justification for the physical contact.

However, the Commission found the penalty to be harsh and excessive, varying it to a reprimand and a requirement to attend refresher training on powers of arrest.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision finding a police officer not guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority under the Police Services Act.

The officer had arrested a 17-year-old student without a warrant based on information from a confidential informant about a drug transaction.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the Storrey test for warrantless arrests and the Debot test for confidential informants.

The Commission held that the officer had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, and the hearing officer's decision was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding and penalty but failed to serve the complainant, who was a party to the original proceedings, with the Notice of Appeal or related materials.

The Commission held that the complainant is a party to the appeal and must be served.

To protect the complainant's rights without unduly prejudicing the appellant for counsel's oversight, the Commission ordered the appellant and respondent police service to serve the complainant within 21 days and adjourned the appeal.