D. Stephen Jovanovic

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of two counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of demotion from First Class to Fourth Class Constable.

The charges arose from an off-duty domestic altercation where the appellant pushed his estranged wife.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably admitted and weighed hearsay evidence, made reasonable findings of fact supported by the appellant's own admissions, and appropriately applied the dispositional factors.

The penalty of demotion, while severe, was found to be within the reasonable range of outcomes.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of insubordination for conducting an unauthorized CPIC query on his wife's vehicle.

He argued the query was part of an investigation into civilian dispatchers and that the Hearing Officer denied him procedural fairness by refusing disclosure of notes from a 2015 conversation regarding a similar complaint.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the 2015 notes were irrelevant to whether the 2018 query was for official police business.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the query was for personal reasons as reasonable.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved operating a police vehicle with an expired licence, failing to immediately report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic outside his jurisdiction, and deceiving his supervisor about the incident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable and the penalty of dismissal proportionate, particularly given the appellant's recent prior discipline resulting in a demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision ordering his dismissal for discreditable conduct and insubordination, including an impaired driving incident while on duty.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding his PTSD and alcohol addiction, and argued the hearing officer erred by proceeding in his absence and failing to properly weigh his mental health issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence as it could have been obtained with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding the hearing officer reasonably weighed the disposition factors and that the seriousness of the misconduct justified dismissal despite the appellant's mental health conditions.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who pled guilty to neglect of duty regarding a sexual assault investigation.

The hearing officer had accepted a joint submission for the forfeiture of 64 hours of time.

The Commission applied the test for leave to appeal and found that the decision was not clearly wrong, nor did the issues raised by the appellant rise to the level of significant importance to the policing profession or the community at large.

The request for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct involved the appellant interfering in an impaired driving investigation of a wedding guest and subsequently lying about his involvement.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by not recusing himself for bias, refusing to order disclosure of prosecution witness notes, and misapprehending voice identification evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, upholding the claim of litigation privilege over the witness notes, and concluding the Hearing Officer's findings of guilt were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to fourth class constable for 18 months, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved fabricating text messages to disparage his ex-wife's new partner and improperly registering individuals as confidential informants to conceal his actions.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by effectively penalizing him for deceit and insubordination, which were not charged, and that the penalty was unduly harsh.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's inferences were reasonably drawn from the Agreed Statement of Facts and the penalty was justified given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding her guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from an incident where the appellant and three other officers responded to a noise complaint and forcibly entered an apartment without a warrant.

The Hearing Officer found the entry unlawful as there were no exigent circumstances, and held the appellant responsible as the supervising officer who directed the entry, while acquitting the other three officers.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapplied the test for discreditable conduct and rendered inconsistent verdicts.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusion that no emergency justified the entry was reasonable, and that the appellant's own evidence establishing her supervisory role and direction to breach the door justified the different verdicts.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his motion to reopen a settled statutory accident benefits claim and to grant an injunction preventing the insurer from terminating his auto insurance policy.

The adjudicator had found that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief or to reopen the matter because the applicant had not returned the settlement funds as required by s. 9.1(8) of Regulation 664.

On reconsideration, the Associate Chair found no error of law, breach of procedural fairness, or reasonable apprehension of bias, and dismissed the request.

The applicant, a Deputy Chief facing misconduct charges under the Police Services Act, brought a motion for third-party production of various documents from the Ottawa Police Service, including the personnel and application files of a civilian complainant.

The Commission assumed jurisdiction to order third-party production and applied the four-part West Park test.

The motion was dismissed regarding the personnel and application files as the applicant failed to establish their arguable relevance, but granted regarding specific notes and emails from two other individuals that were found to be arguably relevant.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion for a publication ban to protect the identities of two complainants in a police misconduct hearing involving allegations of sexual harassment against the respondent.

The complainants sought the ban due to concerns about psychological health and potential workplace repercussions.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test and section 9(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the desire for privacy did not override the open tribunal principle and that no serious risk to the administration of justice had been established.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of Discreditable Conduct and Deceit, and the subsequent penalty of termination.

The misconduct involved submitting numerous false health benefit claims for services allegedly provided by a non-existent massage therapist.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments of the defence witnesses were reasonable and that she did not improperly shift the burden of proof.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of termination, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the serious impact on the police service's reputation and the deliberate, repeated nature of the deceit.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision finding that the applicant's fall while cleaning snow from his parked vehicle constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that under Rule 18.1 of the Tribunal's Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, reconsiderations are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the preliminary issue decision was only one step in determining the claim and did not finally dispose of the appeal, the reconsideration request was dismissed.

The applicant sought an Order to Pay against the respondents for development expenditures on co-owned mining claims under s. 181(2) of the Mining Act.

Following an interim order and written submissions, the respondents consented to the issuance of the order subject to certain procedural conditions.

The Tribunal held that consent is not required under s. 181(2) and issued two orders: one establishing procedural steps for the upcoming liability hearing, including document exchange and discoveries, and a concurrent s. 181(2) Order to Pay.

The applicant, a co-owner of the Chester 2 Properties, brought an application under s. 181(2) of the Mining Act seeking payment from the respondent co-owners for their proportionate share of development expenditures.

The respondents had failed to contribute their 7.5% share of the costs over a four-year period.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay US$ 2,065,492.00, representing their share of the expenditures, plus interest.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his motion to extend the time to file an appeal of his motor vehicle impoundment.

The appellant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated procedural fairness, relying on an email exchange with Tribunal staff.

The Tribunal found the submissions did not establish any jurisdictional error or breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant had waited for a stay disposition before filing his appeal late.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision confirming the 90-day suspension of his driver's licence for failing to provide a breath sample.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in fact by not accepting medical evidence of a sinus fracture as the reason for his failure to provide a sample.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error in the original conclusion that the medical documents were insufficient to prove his condition prevented him from providing a breath sample.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the impoundment of his motor vehicle for driving while suspended.

The request was delivered almost six months late, and the appellant sought an extension of time, claiming ignorance of the 21-day deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that ignorance of the rules was not a sufficient basis for an extension.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the request lacked merit, as the appellant's argument regarding exceptional hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic was moot since the 45-day impoundment period had already ended and the vehicle had been recovered.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed a Proposal to refuse its registration as a lottery ticket seller under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The appellant argued that its paralegal at the original hearing did not allow the president to give evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, noting that the appellant had retained counsel after the evidence was presented, and those subsequent submissions did not raise the issue of inadequate representation or denial of the opportunity to testify.

The request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering his dismissal after he pleaded guilty to insubordination and discreditable conduct, including unauthorized CPIC queries, illegal drug use, and requesting a ticket be voided.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding a PTSD diagnosis.

The Commission dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, concluding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the dispositional factors and the severity of the misconduct.