David G. I. Stewart

The appellant, a police officer with 21 years of unblemished service, appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct.

While off duty, the appellant was observed switching price tags on a stereo at a retail store, resulting in him paying a lower price.

He was subsequently convicted of fraud under the Criminal Code and received a conditional discharge.

At the disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty and ordered to resign or be dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding the appellant's actions were intentional and out of character.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, concluding that dismissal was too severe given the appellant's long, unblemished record and strong community support.

The penalty was varied to a loss of 20 days' pay.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and sentence for discreditable conduct relating to the improper discharge of a firearm.

During a high-speed chase, the officer set up a roadblock and fired a single shot into the radiator of a vehicle speeding directly toward him.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the officer acted on reasonable and probable grounds in fear for his life.

The Commission emphasized that the officer's conduct must be assessed based on the split-second circumstances he faced, rather than in hindsight.

The conviction and punishment were quashed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary occupation (operating a sporting goods store) without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued the regulation was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, relying on its previous decisions rejecting the same Charter arguments, and confirmed the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his involvement in secondary employment without the consent of the Commissioner, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued that section 61 was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty, relying on its previous decisions which rejected identical Charter challenges to the regulation.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty of three forfeited vacation days for engaging in secondary employment without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to Section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued that the regulation was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission rejected the Charter arguments, relying on its previous decisions, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct for engaging in secondary employment as a painter without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued the regulation was discriminatory, violated common law, and infringed sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, relying on its previous decisions upholding the regulation, and confirmed the penalty of forfeiture of three days' vacation.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary occupation (operating a farm feed store) without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued the regulation was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

Relying on a previous decision involving the same arguments, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for Corrupt Practice and a penalty of forfeiture of three days off, arising from his use of CPIC to run background checks on prospective employees for his private business.

On appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, both parties agreed that an offence had been committed but requested that the charge be substituted to avoid the stigma of a 'corrupt practice' conviction.

The Commission consented to the agreement, quashed the Corrupt Practice conviction, substituted a finding of guilt for Insubordination, and maintained the penalty of forfeiture of three days off.

The appellant, a police constable with over ten years of service, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed for neglect of duty, deceit, and insubordination.

The appellant had left his designated patrol area, made false entries in his notebook, and failed to submit a comprehensive report as ordered.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, finding that dismissal was too severe given the appellant's unblemished record and in comparison with penalties applied by other forces.

The penalty was reduced to a reduction in grade from first to second class constable for twelve months.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of a two-rank demotion for discreditable conduct.

The conviction was based on a criminal conviction for obstructing justice, arising from the officer's attempt to dissuade other officers from investigating an illegal stag party he helped organize.

The appellant argued the Presiding Officer gave too much weight to the agreed statement of facts from the criminal trial and not enough to his own testimony.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Presiding Officer properly considered the evidence and that the serious nature of the misconduct warranted the penalty imposed.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct related to engaging in an outside occupation without the Chief of Police's consent.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine witnesses about other officers engaging in outside employment.

The Commission held that such evidence was relevant to potential defenses of implied consent, discriminatory treatment, or unfair procedure.