David L. Edwards

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for using excessive force to restrain a mental health client who was attempting to leave a secure unit.

The Member admitted to pulling the client to the floor and striking him four or five times in the head, neck, and shoulder area.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found that the Member's actions constituted professional misconduct, specifically physical and emotional abuse, and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct, including holding herself out as a physician and a nurse practitioner, recommending alternative cancer treatments, breaching professional boundaries, and accessing medical records without authorization.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

In light of the Member's undertaking to permanently resign from the College and never reapply, the Committee accepted a joint submission and ordered a reprimand.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse who failed to secure 27 Hydromorphone tablets prior to their destruction and disposal.

The member admitted to failing to follow the facility's protocol but contested whether the conduct amounted to unprofessional conduct.

The Discipline Committee found that the member's failure to immediately secure the narcotics in the lockbox demonstrated a serious disregard for her professional obligations and constituted unprofessional conduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a two-month suspension, a reprimand, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the member's certificate of registration.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered practical nurse for alleged physical, verbal, and emotional abuse of patients, as well as unprofessional conduct towards colleagues.

The nurse did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the nurse committed professional misconduct by failing to provide a blanket to a patient, physically and verbally abusing patients, mocking a patient with aphasia, making obscene gestures, and sharing unsolicited sexual information with colleagues.

The Committee revoked the nurse's certificate of registration and ordered a reprimand.

The Member, a registered nurse working at a jail, admitted to professional misconduct for entering into a personal and romantic relationship with an inmate and providing him with a contraband cell phone and accessories.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was suspended for four months, and terms, conditions, and limitations were imposed on her certificate.

The member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the boundaries of the therapeutic nurse-client relationship.

The member admitted to obtaining a vulnerable client's phone number prior to discharge and subsequently engaging in a personal and sexual relationship with the client shortly after discharge.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's certificate of registration and a reprimand.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced a discipline hearing for professional misconduct after his login credentials were used to access the electronic medical records of a high-profile patient not under his care.

The Member admitted to failing to log out of his workstation, which allowed the unauthorized access.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Member was reprimanded, suspended for one month, and subjected to terms and conditions including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the Member for numerous criminal convictions, including theft, impaired driving, and driving while disqualified, and for failing to report these charges and convictions to the College.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct and that her actions were disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Registration, noting her ungovernability and persistent disregard for the law.

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.