David C. Gavsie

Constable Wong appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of a one-day suspension without pay for making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The public complainant also appealed the penalty, arguing it was inadequate.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law regarding the burden of proof and the essential elements of the misconduct charge.

However, the Commission exercised its power to substitute its own decision, finding that the evidence supported the misconduct charge on a balance of probabilities.

The Commission upheld the one-day suspension penalty as reasonable.

Following a finding of misconduct against Mayor Daryl Bennett for his actions as a member of the Peterborough Lakefield Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission determined the appropriate penalty.

The Commission rejected the argument that it lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty due to the disbandment of the Board, finding that a liberal interpretation of the Police Services Act required accountability for past conduct to maintain public confidence.

Given the severity of the misconduct, which included undermining the Board and the Chief of Police, and the lack of remorse, the Commission ordered that Mayor Bennett be removed from the Board.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of Chief John Gauthier of the Timmins Police Service.

The investigation concerned the Chief's decision to cancel Provincial Offence Notices issued to a city councillor for a red light infraction and failing to produce valid insurance.

Chief Gauthier pled guilty to the amended allegation of acting in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Service.

The Commission accepted the guilty plea, found him guilty of discreditable conduct, and adjourned the matter to hear evidence and submissions regarding penalty.

The Durham Regional Police Association and the Senior Officers' Association applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to determine whether a Durham College employee, seconded to the Durham Regional Police Service as Dean of the Police Education and Innovation Centre, was an employee of the Service and thus a member of the Senior Officers' Association.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the clear language of the secondment agreement established the individual remained an employee of the College, despite performing senior leadership duties at the Service.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of dismissal (seven days to resign or be terminated) imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of Insubordination, two counts of Discreditable Conduct, and one count of Breach of Confidence.

The misconduct involved unauthorized access to police databases to obtain confidential information about an acquaintance's criminal investigation and sharing that information with a civilian.

The officer was also convicted criminally of Breach of Trust by a Public Official.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision on penalty was reasonable, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and was proportional to the egregious nature of the misconduct.

Chief Gauthier, charged with discreditable conduct for allegedly withdrawing traffic tickets issued to a city councillor, brought a motion for further disclosure and particulars from the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the administrative law standard for disclosure had been met.

The Notice of Hearing, combined with the 48-page investigative report and extensive evidentiary disclosure, provided sufficient particulars for the Chief to know the case he had to meet.

The Commission is not required to provide its legal strategy, research, or point to the exact pieces of evidence it intends to rely upon at the hearing.

The appellant police officer brought a motion within her disciplinary appeal to adduce fresh evidence and obtain disclosure regarding her permanent removal from the Emergency Response Team (ERT).

She argued the removal constituted disguised discipline that resulted in a loss of specialty and overtime pay, which should have been considered by the Hearing Officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test and granted the request to adduce fresh evidence regarding the financial impact of her removal.

The Commission also applied the West Park Hospital test and ordered the respondent to disclose materials related to the removal decision, finding the information arguably relevant to the live issue of whether the removal was disguised discipline or a purely operational decision.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of Daryl Bennett, Mayor of Peterborough and member of the Peterborough-Lakefield Police Services Board.

The Commission investigated 11 allegations of misconduct, including leaking confidential personnel complaints, attempting to negotiate the police budget directly with the Chief, publicly criticizing the Chief's operational decisions, and making disparaging remarks about the Board and the Commission.

The Commission found that all 11 allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities.

The Commission rejected the Mayor's arguments that his role as Mayor superseded his obligations as a Board member and that his Charter rights to free expression shielded him from the Code of Conduct.

The Commission concluded that Mayor Bennett breached sections 2, 5, 6, 8, and 13 of the Code of Conduct and was guilty of misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of Neglect of Duty and Discreditable Conduct arising from his failure to arrest a suspect following a 9-1-1 call.

The Hearing Officer had found the appellant guilty and imposed a reduction in rank.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in his credibility assessments by relying solely on demeanour without providing cogent reasons, and misapprehended the evidence regarding whether reasonable and probable grounds existed to arrest the suspect.

The Commission concluded that the appellant reasonably determined there were no grounds for arrest.

The appeal was allowed, the findings of guilt were revoked, and the appellant was found not guilty on both charges.

The Appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of 36 counts of misconduct, including unauthorized CPIC and NICHE searches, and imposing a penalty of dismissal.

The Appellant raised 12 grounds of appeal, alleging apprehension of bias, procedural unfairness, evidentiary errors, and an unduly harsh penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's decisions on fact and credibility were reasonable, there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate and consistent with similar cases of unauthorized database access.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering him to resign or be dismissed after being found guilty of Discreditable Conduct, Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority, and Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Force.

The officer had pursued and forcefully arrested a mentally ill pedestrian without lawful authority and grounded him multiple times.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's penalty decision was reasonable.

The Hearing Officer appropriately considered the officer's prior disciplinary record, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the fact that the officer continued to engage in similar misconduct despite receiving extensive therapy for his mental health issues.

The Waterloo Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a penalty decision on the basis that the notice of appeal was filed outside the 30-day statutory time limit.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing despite being notified.

The Commission found that the faxed notice of appeal was deemed received on the 31st day, and held that it has no jurisdiction to extend or waive the statutory time periods under the Police Services Act.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed two penalty decisions ordering her dismissal from the police service.

The first penalty arose from findings of breach of confidence and discreditable conduct for disclosing confidential accident locations to a tow truck operator and offering to help withdraw a traffic ticket.

The second penalty arose from a finding of deceit for lying to investigators during a compelled interview regarding the first matter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld both dismissal penalties, finding that the hearing officers properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the officer's short employment history, prior discipline, and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The moving party, a public complainant, sought leave to appeal a penalty decision that suspended a police officer for one day without pay for making an unlawful arrest during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The moving party argued that the arrest breached his Charter rights and that the appropriate penalty was of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the test for leave to appeal and found that, given the circumstances of the unlawful arrest and detention, the issue of the appropriate penalty was of significant importance.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The Toronto Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the basis that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had resigned and was no longer a police officer.

The appellant had been found guilty of misconduct and resigned on the day the penalty decision was to be delivered, just before it was read.

The Commission held that under the Police Services Act, it only has jurisdiction over current police officers.

Because the appellant had resigned, the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear his appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

At the beginning of an appeal hearing, the appellant police officer filed a second Notice of Appeal.

After discussion with counsel, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission ordered that the two appeals be heard together pursuant to Rule 3.3 of its Rules of Practice.

The Commission set a schedule for the delivery of factums, records, and supporting materials, and scheduled the joint hearing.

The applicant police services board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to terminate 13 civilian communications employees in order to contract out dispatch and 911 services to another municipal police service.

The applicant cited severe financial difficulties and outdated equipment as reasons for the closure of its own communications centre.

The Commission held a public meeting and reviewed the proposal, finding that the contracted police service could provide adequate and effective policing communications.

As the applicant and the police association had already reached a severance agreement for the affected employees, the Commission granted consent to the reduction.

The Ontario Provincial Police brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by Sergeant Mulligan regarding his transfer from aviation duties.

The OPP argued the transfer was an administrative decision, not a disciplinary one, and therefore the Commission lacked jurisdiction.

The Commission found that the essential character of the dispute was disciplinary, stemming from allegations of insubordination, and constituted disguised discipline.

Applying a liberal interpretation of the Police Services Act, the Commission determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the lack of a formal disciplinary hearing.

The motion was dismissed and the appeal was ordered to proceed.

During a hearing into the conduct of a police services board member, the Commission sought to introduce three new factual matters as particulars of an existing allegation of making disparaging remarks.

The member brought a motion to declare the new matters inadmissible, arguing they were new allegations that amounted to an abuse of process and a breach of natural justice because they were raised after the hearing had commenced.

The Panel dismissed the motion, finding that the new matters were merely additional particulars that did not require amending the Notice of Hearing, and that the Commission had provided full disclosure with ample time for the member to prepare a response.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion to amend a Notice of Hearing to add two new allegations against the respondent, a member of a police services board.

The respondent opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking conditions if the amendment was granted.

The Commission granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondent as no evidence had yet been adduced, and ordered that the respondent would not be required to lead evidence before a specified date.