D. Stephen Jovanovic

The Corporation of the Town of Orangeville applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to abolish the Orangeville Police Service and transition to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission granted consent, finding that adequate and effective police services would be maintained and that all members had contractual severance agreements, with any future disputes to be referred to arbitration.

The respondent police service brought an unopposed motion for a sealing order regarding certain exhibits, transcripts, and factum references from a police disciplinary hearing.

The materials contained highly sensitive intelligence information obtained from a confidential informant, as well as personal and criminal histories of non-parties.

Applying both the common law test from Donovan v. Sherman Estate and section 2(2) of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, 2019, the Commission found that the privacy interests of the non-parties and the need to protect confidential informants outweighed the open court principle.

The motion for a sealing order was granted.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of disciplinary offences and ordered dismissed.

He appealed to the Commission.

After the appeal was heard but before a decision was rendered, the appellant retired.

The Commission held that pursuant to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act, it lacks jurisdiction to continue with an appeal or render a decision once an appellant is no longer a police officer.

The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act misconduct charges against two officers due to delay.

The Hearing Officer had found the delay amounted to an abuse of process under the Blencoe framework.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the matter raised issues of significant importance to the policing profession and the community, particularly regarding the role of a public complainant's interests in a Blencoe analysis and the impact of parallel criminal proceedings on administrative delay.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from his failure to properly investigate a wellness check on two vulnerable women, one of whom was later found deceased in their home.

The officer had driven by the residence but did not exit his vehicle or knock on the door, assuming the house was abandoned.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the officer failed in his common law duty to protect life and safety and lacked a lawful excuse for his lack of diligence.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act charges against the respondent officers.

The respondent officers brought a motion to dismiss the request for leave to appeal, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the proposed appellant failed to serve the Solicitor General and the Independent Police Review Director within the 30-day statutory period.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that under section 87 of the Police Services Act and the Commission's rules, service on statutory interveners is not required until after leave to appeal has been granted.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination arising from an off-duty incident at a Human Rights Tribunal hearing, where he loudly accused superior officers of being racists.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the objective test for discreditable conduct was met and that off-duty conduct could constitute insubordination under the Police Services Act where there is a connection to the reputation of the police force.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering her to resign or face termination after she pleaded guilty to four counts of misconduct, including deceit and neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved forging supervisors' signatures on reports, lying about working penalty hours, and failing to attend court.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in failing to find a nexus between her misconduct and her psychological disabilities, which included the impact of a miscarriage and the deaths of loved ones.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded there was no connection between the disabilities and the deceitful conduct, and properly applied the dispositional factors in determining that the appellant's usefulness as a police officer had been annulled.

The Corporation of the Township of North Huron and the North Huron Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to abolish the Wingham Police Service under section 40 of the Police Services Act.

The municipality intended to enter into a contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for the provision of police services.

The Commission found that the OPP proposal would provide adequate and effective police services and that appropriate severance agreements were in place for existing police service members.

The Commission granted consent to abolish the Wingham Police Service.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt and a penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer for discreditable conduct, deceit, and insubordination arising from an unlawful and intrusive search of a female detainee.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in credibility assessments, was biased, improperly denied an adjournment, and imposed an unfit penalty.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the credibility findings, no evidence of bias, and that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct, which also resulted in a criminal conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit under the Police Services Act Code of Conduct and demoting him to third-class constable.

The deceit charge arose from the appellant recording on three Provincial Offence Notices that he had used a LIDAR device to measure speed, when he had actually used RADAR or paced the vehicles.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the appellant intended to deceive was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating the appellant's fabricated testimony as an aggravating factor and by penalizing him for an uncharged intent to mislead the courts.

The penalty was varied to a demotion to second-class constable for six months, and to first-class constable thereafter.

The Town of Espanola and the Espanola Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to abolish the Espanola Police Service and transfer policing responsibilities to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission applied a comparative historical test and found that the OPP's integrated detachment model would continue to provide adequate and effective policing services to the municipality.

The Commission granted consent to the abolition, subject to conditions requiring a finalized agreement with the Solicitor General and the resolution of severance agreements or their referral to arbitration.

The Corporation of the Municipality of West Nipissing applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to abolish the West Nipissing Police Service and contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The West Nipissing Police Services Board opposed the application and sought judicial review, but the Superior Court encouraged the Commission to proceed.

The Commission found that the municipality has the sole authority to choose the method of delivering police services.

The Commission was satisfied that the OPP proposal would provide adequate and effective police services and that appropriate severance agreements were in place for existing employees.

The Commission granted consent to abolish the municipal police service.

The Town of Amherstburg and the Amherstburg Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for approval to have Amherstburg's policing services provided by the Windsor Police Service, and for consent to abolish the Amherstburg Police Service.

Despite significant public opposition citing loss of local autonomy, the Commission found that the proposal would maintain and enhance adequate and effective policing services.

The Commission approved the proposal and consented to the abolition of the local police force, subject to conditions regarding severance agreements for affected members.

The appellant police officer appealed her disciplinary convictions on the grounds that the Hearing Officer's private lunches with the prosecutor created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the private lunches did create a reasonable apprehension of bias, the appellant had waived her right to raise the issue because her experienced representative failed to object at the earliest opportunity and instead waited until after the unfavourable decision on the merits was rendered.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and penalties were confirmed.

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and insubordination and received a nine-month demotion based on a joint submission.

He appealed the penalty, alleging ineffective representation by his association representative, and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission partially granted the motion, allowing the introduction of communications relevant to the ineffective representation claim, but excluding evidence that went to the underlying convictions, as only the penalty was under appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of Discreditable Conduct and ordering her resignation or dismissal.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty domestic incident where the appellant held a knife to her throat while holding her child and threatened to drive into a transport truck.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer made numerous errors, including failing to properly consider her mental state and PTSD diagnosis.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police service and that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severity of the conduct and the appellant's disciplinary history.

The appellant police officer was demoted for two years following a guilty plea to Discreditable Conduct.

Before the two-year period ended, he was suspended for allegedly reporting for duty with alcohol in his system.

The respondent police service refused to reinstate him to his former rank, treating the suspension as interrupting the demotion period.

The appellant appealed, arguing the refusal to reinstate was discipline imposed without a hearing.

The Commission directed the Chief of Police to hold a hearing under Part V of the Police Services Act to determine whether the appellant failed to meet the conditions for reinstatement, and dismissed the appeal without prejudice to the appellant's right to appeal the future hearing officer's decision.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of misconduct charges against four Toronto Police Service officers involved in his arrest during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had found the officers' use of distractionary strikes justified due to the appellant's active resistance.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the decision on a reasonableness standard and found no error in the Hearing Officer's conclusions, confirming the dismissal of the charges.

The Commission noted concerns about qualifying a TPS training officer as an expert witness but held it did not affect the outcome as it was not raised as a ground of appeal.

The appellant appealed the penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay imposed on the respondent police officer for discreditable conduct.

The respondent had previously been convicted of assault with a weapon for his actions during the appellant's arrest at the G20 Summit.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing aggravating and mitigating factors, and the intervener argued the Hearing Officer improperly allowed a collateral attack on the criminal conviction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's penalty decision was reasonable and did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack.