Douglas Smith

The appellant, a Detective Sergeant with 22 years of service, appealed a penalty imposed after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct stemming from an off-duty impaired driving collision in an unmarked police vehicle.

The hearing officer had imposed a two-year demotion to first class constable, after which the appellant would have to reapply for promotion.

The Commission found that while the two-year demotion was within a reasonable range given the seriousness of the misconduct, the requirement to reapply for promotion was unduly harsh and excessive, particularly given the appellant's exemplary record, the personal tragedies that contributed to the incident, and his successful rehabilitation efforts.

The penalty was varied to remove the requirement to reapply for promotion.

The appellant, a Detective Sergeant with the Ontario Provincial Police, appealed a penalty imposed following a finding of discreditable conduct.

The appellant had pled guilty to impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample after crashing an unmarked police cruiser while off duty.

The hearing officer imposed a two-year demotion to first-class constable, after which the appellant would have to reapply for promotion.

The Commission found that while the two-year demotion was within a reasonable range, the requirement to reapply for promotion was unduly harsh given the appellant's exemplary 22-year record, the personal tragedies that contributed to the incident, and his subsequent rehabilitation efforts.

The penalty was varied to allow automatic reinstatement to the rank of Detective Sergeant after the two-year demotion.

The appellant, a Detective Sergeant with the Ontario Provincial Police, appealed the penalty imposed following a finding of discreditable conduct for impaired driving in an unmarked police vehicle.

The hearing officer had imposed a two-year demotion to first-class constable, after which the appellant would have to reapply for promotion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the two-year demotion was within a reasonable range given the seriousness of the misconduct, the requirement to reapply for promotion was unduly harsh in light of the appellant's exemplary 22-year record and the severe personal tragedies he was experiencing at the time.

The penalty was varied to allow automatic reinstatement to his former rank after the two-year demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for misconduct (insubordination) for failing to attend court.

The officer had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at the same time.

He attended the medical bureau and forgot to attend court due to the excitement of potentially returning to work.

The Hearing Officer accepted his evidence but found it did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, holding that an honest mistake in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse, and set aside the finding of guilt.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for misconduct (insubordination) for failing to attend court.

The officer had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at overlapping times.

He attended the medical bureau and forgot to attend court due to the excitement of potentially returning to work.

The Hearing Officer accepted his evidence but found forgetfulness was not a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, holding that an honest mistake in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination under the Police Services Act and Code of Conduct for failing to attend court.

The appellant had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at overlapping times.

The hearing officer accepted the appellant's evidence that he simply forgot to attend court due to the excitement of being at the medical bureau and hoping to return to work, but concluded this did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, applying Divisional Court precedent that an honest mistake can provide an answer to the charge.

The Commission found that the appellant's forgetfulness in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse and set aside the finding of guilt.

The Township of Red Rock applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish its municipal police service and contract policing to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the OPP's proposal, which involved integrating the existing municipal resources with the Nipigon OPP Detachment.

The Commission found that the proposal would provide adequate and effective police services, noting the acceptable police-to-population ratio and the benefits of shared resources.

Consent for the abolition was granted, subject to conditions including the installation of a direct emergency telephone line at the former police office and the referral of any unresolved severance matters to arbitration.