Dr. Bette Stephenson

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the penalty of resignation.

The charge arose from a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl.

The appellant had been acquitted of criminal sexual assault charges because the Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the conduct was discreditable and contrary to society's expectations.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of resignation, noting the appellant's prior criminal and Police Act convictions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer was convicted of neglect of duty for failing to prepare a fingerprint comparison chart prior to a preliminary hearing, resulting in the withdrawal of criminal charges.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant should have used his rest days to complete the task.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission set aside the conviction, finding that the appellant had made a diligent attempt to fulfill his duties during his regular working hours and that the expectation to use rest days was based on hindsight.

Constable Burgess appealed his convictions and dismissal for deceit and unnecessary exercise of authority under the Code of Discipline.

The charges arose from an incident where he used force to lift an uncooperative prisoner from a chair, resulting in an accidental injury, and subsequently filed an inaccurate Occurrence Report.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission admitted fresh evidence and quashed both convictions.

The Commission found the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and that, while the Occurrence Report was incomplete and inaccurate, there was no evidence of an intent to mislead or deceive.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of forced resignation or dismissal after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for shoplifting items worth approximately $70.

The appellant presented psychiatric evidence that he was under severe stress due to his own battle with Hodgkin's disease and his father's serious illness.

The Commission accepted that the stress explained, but did not excuse, the conduct, and upheld the finding of guilt.

However, considering the appellant's 18 years of unblemished service and his mental turmoil, the Commission found dismissal too severe.

The penalty was varied to a reduction in rank from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for at least six months.