David L. Edwards

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.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty and unlawful exercise of authority, as well as the penalty of a one-year demotion.

The charges arose from an incident where the appellant allegedly kicked and slapped a handcuffed suspect and failed to submit a use of force report or note the injuries.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and findings of fact were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting the serious nature of the misconduct and the appellant's supervisory role.

The appellant police officer appealed a two-year demotion imposed for discreditable conduct after he drove a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol and was involved in a single-vehicle collision.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by treating the officer's delay in reporting the collision as an aggravating factor, as this allegation had been withdrawn on consent.

Given the mitigating factors, including a guilty plea and positive performance evaluations, the Commission allowed the appeal in part and reduced the penalty to a one-year demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty.

Prior to the hearing, the parties submitted a consent motion requesting an order revoking the hearing officer's decisions, citing a failure by the complainant to disclose relevant evidence.

The Commission noted that counsel failed to provide written argument, factums, or evidence to support the motion, and failed to address the Commission's jurisdiction to grant such relief on consent.

The Commission held that it cannot simply rubber-stamp a joint submission and directed counsel to file the required materials by a specified date, failing which the motion would be dismissed. (An amending order later corrected the name of the respondent's counsel in the original decision).

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and the resulting penalty of a seven-day forfeiture.

The officer had conducted unauthorized CPIC inquiries on his wife and her vehicle for personal reasons, specifically to determine if his ex-wife had improperly searched for their new address.

The Commission upheld the finding of guilt, confirming that CPIC must be used exclusively for police business and that the officer's personal motivations did not justify the searches.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to a three-day forfeiture, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in law by considering prior informal discipline that should have been expunged from the officer's record under section 64(16) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted criminally for shoplifting and uttering threats while off duty.

The Hearing Officer ordered his dismissal.

On appeal, the Commission found the Hearing Officer committed a manifest error in principle by accepting the diagnosis of work-related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) but failing to consider it as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase.

The uncontradicted medical evidence showed the appellant had recovered and his risk of reoffending was extremely low.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a one-year demotion to third-class constable with mandatory psychological monitoring.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing his motion to quash a disciplinary charge for delay.

The appellant had subsequently pled guilty to the charge and served the penalty.

The Commission held that the appeal was not moot, but that the appellant had waived his right to appeal by pleading guilty without reserving his right to challenge jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the Commission found that the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act commenced when investigators obtained independent witness statements, providing a sufficient body of factual information to create a reasonable belief of misconduct.

As the Notice of Hearing was served within six months of that date, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination, as well as the penalty imposed for one of the discreditable conduct counts.

The charges arose from an incident where the officer directed a rude comment at a motorist, issued an unjustified traffic ticket, and subsequently failed to attend court for the traffic matter.

The Commission upheld the findings of guilt, concluding they were not void of evidentiary foundation.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the forfeiture from five days to three days, noting the officer's unblemished 15-year service record and the principles of progressive discipline.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on two counts of discreditable conduct and one count of insubordination, as well as the penalty imposed for one of the discreditable conduct counts.

The charges arose from a traffic stop where the officer allegedly made a rude comment to a motorist and subsequently issued a questionable traffic ticket, and later failed to attend court for the ticket.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the findings of guilt, concluding they were not void of evidentiary foundation.

However, the Commission found the penalty of forfeiture of five days off for issuing the ticket to be excessive given the officer's unblemished record, and reduced it to three days off.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of guilt for neglect of duty and the penalties imposed for that offence, insubordination, and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a civilian employee while on duty and misusing the police email system.

The Commission upheld the finding of guilt for neglect of duty, finding it was supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalties, reducing a two-rank demotion to a one-rank demotion for twelve months, finding the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors such as the appellant's exemplary service record, remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of immediate dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to four counts of misconduct, including neglect of duty, deceit, and two counts of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved engaging in sexual activity with members of the public while on duty and in uniform, as well as leaving a scheduled training seminar to meet a woman and subsequently falsifying duty reports.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly considered the relevant factors including the officer's potential for rehabilitation, and imposed a penalty consistent with similar infractions.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing a charge of misconduct against the respondent police officer for an unlawful or unnecessary arrest.

The Commission previously revoked the dismissal and substituted a finding of guilt.

In this decision on penalty, the Commission considered the complexity of the law regarding the implied licence to knock and its revocation, noting the officer acted in good faith but made a wrong decision.

The Commission ordered the officer to participate in a critical incident debrief to help incorporate the findings into training procedures and issued a formal reprimand pursuant to the Police Services Act.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing a charge of misconduct against the respondent police officer for making an unlawful arrest.

The Commission previously revoked the dismissal and substituted a finding of guilt, noting the officer misunderstood the law regarding the revocation of an implied licence to knock.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the seriousness of the misconduct against the officer's junior status, his mistaken but good faith belief in the lawfulness of his actions, and his subsequent positive performance.

The Commission ordered the officer to participate in a critical incident debrief to help incorporate the findings into training procedures and issued a formal reprimand.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing a charge of misconduct against the respondent police officer for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest.

The incident occurred when the officer attended the appellant's residence to investigate a complaint and a physical altercation ensued at the door.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law by concluding that the implied licence to knock could not be withdrawn by clearly understood demeanour.

Since the officer acknowledged knowing he was not welcome from first contact, he became a trespasser by remaining on the property, rendering the subsequent arrest unlawful.

The appeal was allowed and a finding of guilt for misconduct was substituted.

The appellant filed a public complaint against a police officer, which led to a disciplinary hearing where the officer was found not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant appealed the decision to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

Before the appeal could be heard, the officer retired from the police force.

The Commission held a motion to determine its jurisdiction and concluded that under the Police Services Act, it has no jurisdiction to conduct a disciplinary appeal regarding an individual who is no longer a police officer.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to second-class constable for six months following a guilty plea to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved driving an unregistered and uninsured personal vehicle and failing to report an accident.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer did not err in principle and properly considered the officer's prior disciplinary record and the principle of progressive discipline.

The penalty was deemed reasonable and within the appropriate range.