D. Stephen Jovanovic

The applicant, a civilian Fleet Supervisor with the Niagara Regional Police Service, applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 116(1) of the Police Services Act for a declaration that he is a senior officer.

The respondent Senior Officers' Association initially opposed the application but later withdrew its opposition.

The Commission applied the Dryden factors and found that the applicant is employed in a supervisory or confidential capacity.

The application was granted and the applicant was declared a senior officer.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for insubordination and neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

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

The Commission held that pursuant to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act, it lost jurisdiction over the matter once the appellant ceased to be a police officer.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Five police officers appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act arising from the arrest of a public complainant during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's decision, which relied heavily on video evidence.

The Commission confirmed the conviction of one officer for unlawful arrest, finding no good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

However, the Commission revoked the remaining convictions for unlawful arrest, unnecessary force, and discreditable conduct, concluding that the Hearing Officer failed to provide sufficient reasons or analysis regarding the assisting officers' roles, the use of force, and the elements of discreditable conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from his failure to properly supervise a sudden death investigation, including failing to secure the scene, preserve evidence, and call specialized units after concluding prematurely that a motor vehicle was not involved.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Hearing Officer's factual findings and confirmed the conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence that the appellant's conduct crossed the line from a performance issue to misconduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of the Chair of the Hamilton Police Services Board regarding comments he made on a radio show about street checks and an ongoing disciplinary proceeding.

The respondent admitted his comments breached section 13 of the Code of Conduct by compromising the integrity of the board and the police force.

The Commission accepted a joint submission and Agreed Statement of Facts, ordering that the respondent be suspended from his duties on the board for three weeks.

The appellant appealed the decision of a Hearing Officer dismissing charges of neglect of duty against three Ottawa Police Service officers.

The charges arose from the officers' investigation of a physical altercation involving the appellant, specifically regarding the failure to photograph the appellant's injuries, failure to review a seized camera, and failure to complete a return to justice form.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law, did not exhibit bias, provided adequate assistance to the unrepresented appellant, and properly assessed the evidence.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's claim of prosecutorial incompetence.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for neglect of duty and unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority arising from his use of force against an intoxicated, handcuffed individual in a police cruiser.

The Commission revoked the finding of guilt for unlawful exercise of authority, finding the Hearing Officer applied the wrong standard of proof, improperly relied on personal experience to determine the cause of the individual's injury, and made irreconcilably inconsistent findings of credibility.

However, the Commission confirmed the finding of guilt for neglect of duty, upholding the determination that the appellant deliberately misled his supervisor and failed to properly document the use of force in his notes and reports.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for speaking at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization while off-duty, contrary to a direct order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under section 49(1) of the Police Services Act.

However, the Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction, ruling that the Hearing Officer erred by applying a subjective test rather than an objective reasonable person test to assess whether the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force.

The respondent police service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant officer's appeal as untimely under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant had been demoted with conditional reinstatement, but was not reinstated following a subsequent suspension.

After an arbitrator ruled the dispute was disciplinary and not arbitrable, the appellant appealed to the Commission.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the 30-day time limit in section 87(1) did not apply because no hearing had taken place.

The Commission further held it had jurisdiction under section 78(1) because the complaints process was not completed given the conditional nature of the original penalty.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The Hearing Officer imposed a 21-month demotion to Second Class Constable.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by overemphasizing aggravating factors, such as policy memoranda, and failing to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's low breathalyzer readings, lack of impairment indicia, and exemplary work record.

The Commission allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty to a 12-month demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct.

The conviction arose from a sarcastic internal report the appellant wrote criticizing an order to conduct a missing person investigation, which he believed was a conflict of interest.

The Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Hearing Officer.

However, the Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct was unreasonable, as the appellant's conduct should have been treated as a performance issue rather than misconduct.

The conviction was revoked.

The appellant, a police superintendent acting as Incident Commander during the 2010 G20 Summit, appealed convictions for professional misconduct relating to the mass arrests of protestors at the Novotel Hotel and the intersection of Queen and Spadina.

The Hearing Officer found the arrests were unlawful and constituted an unnecessary exercise of authority, and that the appellant committed discreditable conduct by leaving detainees in inclement weather.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law regarding reasonable and probable grounds and the ancillary powers doctrine.

On the cross-appeals regarding penalty, the Commission found the original penalties (a reprimand and forfeiture of 10 days off) were unreasonable given the severity of the Charter breaches.

The Commission varied the penalties to the forfeiture of 20 days off for each of the two unlawful arrest convictions, to be served consecutively with the 20 days off forfeited for discreditable conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to deceit and insubordination.

The misconduct involved making a false statement to investigators regarding his brother's whereabouts and conducting unauthorized database searches.

The Commission found the penalty of dismissal unreasonable, noting the Hearing Officer erred in principle by relying on speculative findings and the fact of the officer's suspension.

The Commission varied the penalty to a forfeiture of nine days' pay for insubordination, and a 30-day suspension without pay followed by a two-year demotion to fourth-class constable for deceit.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for Unnecessary Exercise of Authority.

After a lengthy appellate history reaching the Court of Appeal, which determined the correct standard of proof was clear and convincing evidence rather than a balance of probabilities, the matter was remitted to the Commission.

The complainant subsequently withdrew the complaint.

Given the withdrawal and the inability to determine if the Hearing Officer would have reached the same conclusion under the correct standard, the Commission rescinded the Hearing Officer's decision.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit for falsifying Daily Activity Reporting (DAR) records.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in finding an intent to deceive, misapprehended the evidence, and improperly admitted statements he made during a compelled interview under section 83(6) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably inferred an intent to deceive from the detailed falsifications and the potential benefit to the appellant.

The Commission also held that section 83(6) protects an officer from being compelled to testify at a hearing, but does not preclude the admission of statements made during a disciplinary investigation.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty decision ordering him to resign or be summarily dismissed following convictions for criminal harassment and breach of trust.

The misconduct involved stalking his former partner and conducting unauthorized police database searches.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer appropriately weighed the penalty factors, including the egregious nature of the offences, the damage to the police service's reputation, and the appellant's limited prospects for rehabilitation.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of dismissal was confirmed.

The appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence at the hearing of his appeal regarding the penalty imposed on a police officer for misconduct during the G20 protests.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and found that the proposed evidence either could have been adduced at the original hearing with due diligence, was already part of the record, or was irrelevant.

The motion to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed.

The appellant police officer was involved in an off-duty domestic altercation and subsequently ordered by a superior to answer questions during a Professional Standards Bureau investigation.

The appellant refused to answer, arguing there was no legal authority to compel statements regarding off-duty conduct, and was found guilty of insubordination.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirmed the finding of guilt, holding that the order was lawful and that police officers can be compelled to answer questions regarding off-duty conduct that may amount to misconduct.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination arising from an incident where he allegedly attended a police disciplinary hearing under the influence of alcohol and refused an order to take a breath test.

The Hearing Officer's decision was premised on the finding that the appellant was on duty at the time.

The Commission found that the evidence did not reasonably support the conclusion that the appellant was on duty, as he had been granted an 'Association day' and was not explicitly ordered to return to work.

The Commission revoked the findings of guilt and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant, a police officer, was transferred and had 200 hours removed from his vacation bank after an investigation into unapproved overtime.

The respondent conceded the transfers were disciplinary but had not held a hearing under the Police Services Act.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction over disguised discipline despite the lack of a first instance hearing.

It directed the Commissioner of the OPP to hold a hearing regarding the transfers, but held that the vacation bank dispute was a payroll matter to be resolved through the collective agreement grievance process.