Dean E. Peachey

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for two counts of neglect of duty (sleeping on duty and failing to respond to a break-in) and one count of deceit, as well as the penalties imposed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the Hearing Officer's reasons were inadequate, the evidence on record met the clear and convincing standard to support the convictions.

The Commission upheld the convictions but varied the penalties, reducing the indefinite demotion to a fixed six-month period and reducing the forfeiture of pay for deceit from 40 hours to 16 hours.

The appellant, a Staff Sergeant with the OPP, appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct for utilizing an OPP vehicle for personal use to visit a woman in the White Dog community.

The Commission found that while two of the alleged visits were incidental to legitimate police business, the third visit involved driving a police vehicle for strictly personal reasons.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the charge was proven and dismissed the appeal.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for Discreditable Conduct and the penalty of an eight-hour loss of time.

The conviction stemmed from an incident where the Appellant allegedly called an assault victim a 'bitch' outside a courtroom.

The Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to provide clear and convincing evidence, citing conflicting witness testimony and another individual's admission to making the comment.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably assessed witness credibility and that the penalty was not excessive given the circumstances.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of forfeiture of four days off for careless damage to equipment.

The officer had driven his cruiser onto a wet grass field while pursuing youths, skidded, and struck a light pole.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the officer failed to maintain control of the vehicle and exhibited careless behaviour.

The Commission also rejected the argument that the charge violated principles of progressive discipline, noting the officer's prior driving-related conduct reports.

The Chief of Police was charged with two disciplinary offences under the Police Services Act.

The first charge, alleging he allowed unauthorized persons in a police vehicle, was quashed for failing to disclose an offence and lacking sufficient particulars.

The second charge, alleging neglect of duty for failing to provide backup during an emergency, was dismissed after a hearing.

The Commission found the Chief was engaged in an assigned duty leading a parade, was not requested by dispatch to assist, and did not contravene standard police procedures.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was involved in a driving altercation where he assaulted a civilian, causing extensive facial damage.

He was convicted of assault causing bodily harm under the Criminal Code.

Following a disciplinary hearing under the Police Services Act, he was found guilty of discreditable conduct and dismissed from the police service.

He appealed the penalty to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing it was disproportionate and disparate compared to other cases.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the severity of the violence and the officer's lack of credibility—highlighted by his reliance on a fabricated timeline regarding his father's accident to claim emotional stress—justified the penalty of dismissal.