David C. Gavsie

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of dismissal arising from a 2004 traffic stop and drug seizure.

The Hearing Officer had found the Appellant guilty of neglect of duty based largely on hearsay utterances from a disgraced former officer and circumstantial evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer committed numerous errors of law, including admitting highly unreliable and prejudicial hearsay evidence, shifting the burden of proof onto the Appellant, making irreconcilable findings of fact, and improperly using his own police experience to fill gaps in the evidentiary record.

The finding of misconduct was quashed, rendering the penalty moot.

The applicant, a civilian manager of the Niagara Regional Police Service's Video Unit, applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to be classified as a senior officer under s. 116 of the Police Services Act.

The application was opposed by the Niagara Regional Police Association.

The Commission applied the factors from the Metro Toronto Police Association decision to determine if the applicant was employed in a supervisory or confidential capacity under s. 114.

Finding that the applicant exercised significant responsibility, initiative, and supervisory duties over his unit and the Ontario Police Video Training Alliance, the Commission granted the application and ordered that he be classified as a senior officer.

The Port Hope Police Services Board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to terminate six civilian communicators in order to outsource communications and dispatch services to the Owen Sound Police Service.

After a public meeting and review of the proposed dispatching agreement, the Commission found that the outsourcing would continue to provide adequate and effective police services for Port Hope while addressing financial pressures.

The Commission consented to the application, ordering that any outstanding severance issues be submitted to arbitration if not resolved within 90 days.

The respondent, a member of a police services board, brought four preliminary motions seeking to stay or dismiss the proceedings against him.

He argued that the Commission failed to provide a motion record, that the Notice of Hearing lacked sufficient particulars, that there was a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias due to the Commission's dual investigative and adjudicative roles, and that he was entitled to transcripts from a separate proceeding.

The Commission dismissed all four motions, finding that no motion record was required for an investigation initiated on its own motion, the Notice of Hearing provided reasonable information of the allegations, the Commission's statutory structure and recusal policy prevented institutional bias, and there was no basis to order the disclosure of transcripts from an unrelated hearing.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay for conducting unauthorized CPIC searches on an individual involved in a domestic relationship with the officer's friend.

The officer argued that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to order the disclosure of a 2007 investigation file regarding similar CPIC searches for which the officer was cleared.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the strict criminal disclosure standards from Stinchcombe do not apply to administrative police discipline hearings, and that the disclosure provided was sufficient to allow the officer to know the case to be met.

The Durham Regional Police Association and the Durham Regional Police Senior Officers' Association filed a joint application to determine whether the Dean of Police Education and Innovation is a member of the police service.

The Chief of Police brought a motion seeking party status as an 'affected person' under s. 116 of the Police Services Act, and requesting that the Durham Regional Police Association be denied party status.

The Commission granted the Chief's motion for party status, finding he has a direct interest in the matter, but denied the request to remove the Association as a party, finding it premature.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion imposed by a Hearing Officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer was biased, the prosecutor was unfair, and that it was fundamentally unfair to proceed with the hearing in his absence while he was on long-term disability.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias or prosecutorial unfairness.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer was legally correct to request medical information to substantiate the need for further adjournments and acted reasonably in proceeding in the appellant's absence after numerous delays and a persistent lack of cooperation.

The penalty of demotion was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for deceit and discreditable conduct, as well as the penalty of a six-month demotion, arising from his failure to properly investigate a fellow officer's possession of potentially stolen property.

The appellant argued the hearing officer misapprehended evidence and provided deficient reasons.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range of outcomes.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision imposing a demotion in rank for assisting another officer in cheating on three separate promotional examinations using electronic communication equipment.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended the evidence regarding her motivation, failed to properly weigh case law, and imposed a harsh and excessive penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, transparent, and fell within the acceptable range of outcomes for the serious misconduct committed.

The City of Pembroke applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to disband the Pembroke Police Service and contract policing services to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission found that the proposed OPP Integrated Detachment model would provide adequate and effective police services to the municipality.

The Commission granted consent to abolish the municipal police service, subject to the condition that if severance agreements with the affected employees are not reached within 90 days, the matters will proceed to arbitration.

The appellant, a police sergeant, brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on his appeal of a discreditable conduct finding and demotion penalty.

The appellant argued the evidence, though chronologically available at the time of the hearing, was functionally unavailable because he was on long-term disability and did not participate.

The Commission applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding the first branch was not met because the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing.

The issue of whether the hearing officer erred in proceeding in the appellant's absence was deferred to the main appeal.

The Corporation of the Town of Perth applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to disband the Perth Police Service and transition to an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Integrated Detachment Model.

The Commission held a public meeting to consider the proposal.

The Commission found that the OPP proposal would provide adequate and effective policing in accordance with the Town's needs, maintaining a comparable officer-to-population ratio and providing access to specialized OPP resources.

The Commission also found that fair severance arrangements had been made for all employees, ordering arbitration for the Chief of Police if an agreement could not be reached within 60 days.

The application for disbandment was granted.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after she pled guilty to two counts of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct stemmed from two off-duty incidents of impaired driving for which she was criminally convicted.

The appellant argued that her misconduct was driven by her alcohol addiction and anxiety disorder, which were now in sustained remission, and sought reinstatement with a demotion.

The Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the repeated and serious nature of the misconduct, combined with her prior disciplinary record, outweighed the mitigating factors of her rehabilitation efforts.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to five charges of misconduct, including insubordination and discreditable conduct, arising from over 150 unauthorized CPIC and PIP searches and inappropriate use of police equipment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review to the Hearing Officer's decision.

The Commission found no manifest errors, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the evidence, assessed credibility, and applied appropriate sentencing principles.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant, a police officer with 19 years of service, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to seven counts of insubordination and one count of neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved over 100 unauthorized CPIC checks, inappropriate relationships with women known to have criminal records, and negligent administration of police duties.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider mitigating factors, including his personal circumstances and depression.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and correctly concluded that the appellant's protracted pattern of serious misconduct warranted dismissal.

The City of Kawartha Lakes Police Service brought a motion to dismiss Constable Randy Johnson's appeal for failing to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory period under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant argued he did not receive written notice of the penalty decision until he received a letter from the Chief on February 15, 2012.

The Commission found that the appellant received written notice on January 6, 2012, when the Hearing Officer emailed the decision to his counsel on consent.

As the notice of appeal was filed late and the Commission has no statutory power to extend the time period, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty arising from a suspect apprehension pursuit conducted in an unmarked police vehicle.

The Hearing Officer found that the Appellant breached police procedures but concluded the breach was not wilful, yet still constituted misconduct.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in determining the breach was not wilful.

Given the Appellant's training and the absolute prohibition against using unmarked vehicles in pursuits, the Commission concluded the breach was deliberate and intentional, thereby satisfying the requirement of wilfulness for neglect of duty.

The appeal was dismissed.