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 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 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 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 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.

The appellant, a police inspector, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of Discreditable Conduct for using discriminatory and insulting language during a recruitment interview with a South Asian candidate.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer applied the wrong legal test, erred in credibility assessments, and reversed the burden of proof.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer correctly applied an objective test to determine the language was offensive to community standards, properly assessed credibility, and correctly applied the standard of clear, convincing, and weighty evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct for carelessly causing damage to his police vehicle during a left-turn collision, and the subsequent penalty of forfeiting 16 hours.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct finding, concluding that the officer failed to ensure he could complete his turn safely.

However, the Commission allowed the penalty appeal, finding the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating the officer's failure to acknowledge guilt and the absence of Highway Traffic Act consequences as aggravating factors.

The penalty was reduced to the jointly submitted forfeiture of 8 hours.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct under the Police Services Act Code of Conduct for using profanity towards a member of the public during a tense investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by equating the use of profanity with Discreditable Conduct absolutely, without applying the required objective test.

The Commission held that an objective test, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person in the community and considering the context of the situation, must be applied.

Given the tense and potentially dangerous circumstances of the call, the Commission concluded the single use of an expletive did not meet the objective test for Discreditable Conduct and revoked the finding.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of neglect of duty and deceit under the Police Services Act.

The appellant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair regarding new evidence (scratch notes) and the refusal to allow a witness to testify about GPS data.

The Commission found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant was provided the new evidence and the Hearing Officer properly exercised her gatekeeper function to exclude irrelevant testimony after the respondent admitted his error.

The Commission declined to re-examine the evidence, deferring to the Hearing Officer's factual findings, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of Discreditable Conduct against two police officers.

The charges arose from the officers' failure to administer a breath test to a driver involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident, despite the driver admitting to consuming one beer five hours earlier.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer reasonably assessed the officers' credibility and correctly applied the objective test for Discreditable Conduct.

The Commission confirmed the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the officers' actions, while based on an incorrect understanding of their authority, were not likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police service.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant argued that the Notice of Hearing was inaccurate and that her hearing impairment prevented her from fully participating in the hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Notice of Hearing provided reasonable notice and that the Hearing Officer took sufficient steps to accommodate the appellant's hearing impairment, ensuring procedural fairness.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of misconduct (discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence) and ordering his dismissal.

The misconduct related to his failure to report two separate kidnappings, conducting unauthorized CPIC queries, and disclosing confidential information.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the Hearing Officer's decisions regarding delay, admission of video link and transcript evidence, credibility assessments, or the finding that his actions constituted discreditable conduct.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a 12-month demotion imposed after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for giving inconsistent and contradictory evidence in a criminal trial.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by treating his refusal to accept responsibility as an aggravating factor and by failing to apply principles of progressive discipline and consistency of penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the Hearing Officer erred in characterizing the lack of remorse as an aggravating factor rather than the absence of a mitigating factor, it did not render the penalty unreasonable.

The Commission also held that the demotion was within the range of reasonable penalties and that progressive discipline is not required in every case.