David L. Edwards

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to second-class constable for six months, imposed after he was found guilty of discreditable conduct for attempting to intimidate a citizen into pleading guilty to a traffic charge.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and failed to apply the principle of progressive discipline.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's employment history, and the principle of progressive discipline, and that the penalty was within the reasonable range of options.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision that he lacked jurisdiction to proceed with a disciplinary charge of discreditable conduct against a police officer.

The Commission had previously directed the Chief of Police to initiate a hearing within 60 days, but the charge was served 256 days later.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was a final decision subject to appeal.

The Commission granted leave to appeal and held that the 60-day direction was not a mandatory condition that invalidated the proceedings if breached.

The Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision, found no abuse of process due to delay, and ordered the Chief of Police to proceed with the charge.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of discreditable conduct.

The charges arose from criminal proceedings involving an assault on a fellow officer with whom he had a domestic relationship, and two subsequent breaches of a recognizance.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant penalty factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for threatening, and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The Commission concluded that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable and within the Hearing Officer's discretion.

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

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted touching directed at a female civilian co-worker.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent gender sensitivity counseling.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's decision to deny an adjournment request, finding the appellant had ample time to prepare.

Finally, the Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the seriousness of the workplace sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for domestic assault and indecent exposure, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

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

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted touching directed at a female civilian co-worker.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by denying an adjournment request and that the penalty was excessive.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the adjournment denial was reasonable given the history of delays and lack of medical evidence.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the seriousness of the workplace sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for criminal offences, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

A motion to introduce new evidence of post-termination counseling was also denied.

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

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and touching directed at a civilian employee.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it failed the Palmer test.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's decision to deny an adjournment, noting the appellant's history of delays and failure to justify the request.

Finally, the Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, emphasizing the seriousness of the sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.