D. Stephen Jovanovic

The moving parties, added as parties to an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to review a liquor licence application, brought a motion for disclosure of the appellant's corporate structure and past records of noise complaints.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Registrar's Notice of Proposal was based solely on the public interest provision of the Liquor Licence Act, not on past conduct.

Therefore, the requested documents were not relevant to the issues in dispute.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct, which were based on a guilty plea and a joint submission.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, arguing that his guilty plea was involuntary and resulted from the ineffective assistance of his former counsel, who allegedly failed to properly advance a defence based on his mental health (panic attacks).

The Commission admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was fit to instruct counsel, the plea was voluntary, and he failed to establish that his former counsel's representation was incompetent or resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The penalty of a nine-month demotion was confirmed.

The respondent police officers brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal or quash his request for leave to appeal, arguing he failed to comply with the Police Services Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice regarding service.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant was not required to seek leave to appeal because no disciplinary penalty was imposed, as the charges had been dismissed.

Furthermore, the Commission retroactively authorized the appellant's service of the Notice of Appeal through the Ottawa Police Service, noting the respondents suffered no prejudice.

The Town of St. Marys sought approval from the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 5(1)(6) of the Police Services Act to contract with the City of Stratford for policing services.

Because the municipalities are not geographically contiguous, standard contracting provisions did not apply, necessitating Commission approval for an alternative method.

The Commission reviewed the proposal, noting the municipality's primary responsibility for adequate and effective policing and the Stratford Police Service's commitment to regulatory compliance.

The Commission granted the approval, subject to receipt of the final agreement.

Two police officers appealed their disciplinary convictions for Unlawful or Unnecessary Arrest and Discreditable Conduct, as well as the penalties imposed.

The officers had entered a residence without a warrant to investigate a noise complaint and arrested a youth who was recording them.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the unlawful arrest convictions, finding no hot pursuit justified the warrantless entry.

However, the Commission overturned the discreditable conduct conviction against one officer, finding the hearing officer failed to apply the objective reasonable person test to her use of mild profanity.

The penalties were varied from forfeiture of hours to reprimands and training to align with similar cases.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination, discreditable conduct, and deceit, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from the appellant's failure to assist two members of the public with criminal record checks outside regular business hours, contrary to orders, and his subsequent deceit to a supervisor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the findings of misconduct, finding the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments reasonable.

However, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the appellant twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and failing to apply the Kienapple principle.

The penalty was varied from an 18-month demotion to a forfeiture of 40 hours.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision requiring her to resign or face termination after she pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting fraudulent health benefit claims.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh, excessive, and inconsistent with similar cases where officers were demoted rather than dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the usefulness test, the officer's short tenure, and the severity of the repetitive fraud.

A dissenting member would have substituted a penalty of demotion based on consistency with prior disciplinary cases.

Two police officers appealed findings of misconduct and penalties arising from the unlawful arrest of a civilian during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct findings, concluding the Hearing Officer reasonably assessed credibility and correctly found the officers lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest and used excessive force.

However, the Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating one officer's untruthful testimony as an aggravating factor for penalty.

The penalty for the arresting officer was reduced from a two-month to a one-month demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision imposing the penalty of immediate dismissal following his guilty plea to a charge of use of unnecessary force.

The officer had assaulted a handcuffed, intoxicated prisoner in the back of a scout car after daring the prisoner to spit in his face.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors, including the officer's prior disciplinary record and the egregious nature of the assault.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's decision to be reasonable and confirmed the penalty of immediate dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for insubordination after discharging his firearm at a fleeing vehicle, contrary to a Toronto Police Service procedure.

The appellant argued he had a lawful excuse due to an honest, subjective belief that his life was in imminent danger.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that a lawful excuse requires both a subjective belief and objectively reasonable actions.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the appellant's actions were not objectively reasonable, as he had removed himself from the imminent threat before firing.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of misconduct for allegedly using unnecessary force by kicking a handcuffed suspect.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the evidence and found that the Hearing Officer failed to make a definitive finding on whether the appellant actually kicked the suspect as alleged in the Statement of Particulars.

Concluding that the evidence did not meet the required standard of clear and convincing proof, the Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision and dismissed the charge.

The Appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to deliver a Notice of Appeal regarding a police discipline matter.

The Respondent officer argued the appeal was out of time under the Commission's Rules.

The Commission found that the Appellant had formed an intention to appeal within the relevant time period and that the justice of the case required an extension.

The motion was granted, allowing the Notice of Appeal to be filed nunc pro tunc.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of a 20-month demotion from Sergeant to First Class Constable imposed following his guilty plea to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved off-duty impaired driving and an altercation with a witness.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by considering facts not in evidence, giving insufficient weight to mitigating factors, misdirecting himself on internal policies, and improperly differentiating joint submission cases.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found no clear error in principle and confirmed the penalty, emphasizing the seriousness of drinking and driving by police officers.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of eight days' pay.

The misconduct involved the officer repeatedly accepting free meals from a restaurant while in uniform.

The Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review to the finding of misconduct and the penalty.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible, and that the penalty was within the appropriate range given the officer's conduct and disciplinary history.

The appeal was dismissed and the decision confirmed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer, which imposed a forfeiture of five days' pay on the respondent officer for discreditable conduct related to an assault during the G20 Summit.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the matters raised were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large, satisfying the third branch of the test for leave to appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for Discreditable Conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal from the police service.

The officer had previously pleaded guilty to the disciplinary charge, which was based on a criminal conviction that was later overturned on appeal.

The Commission held that the subsequent overturning of the criminal conviction did not render the original, informed guilty plea a nullity.

The Commission further found that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the officer's disciplinary history and the serious nature of the misconduct, which involved violence and threats against members of the public.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's appeal for failure to serve a Notice of Appeal within the thirty-day statutory period under the Police Services Act.

The complainant faxed the Notice of Appeal on the thirtieth day, but under section 96(2) of the Act, faxed documents are deemed received on the following day.

The Commission held that the appeal was served on the thirty-first day and that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit.

The appeal was dismissed as untimely.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing misconduct charges against two police officers for allegedly making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The appellant had been arrested for wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence after officers observed him wearing an orange bandana over his face.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges based entirely on finding the appellant not credible, without analyzing the legal elements of a lawful arrest under the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons inadequate, as they failed to address whether the officers had subjective and objective reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing before a different Hearing Officer.

The appellant, a retired Staff Sergeant, appealed a decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and neglect of duty, as well as the subsequent penalty decision demoting him.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the appellant retired from the police service.

On consent of all parties, the Commission dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction due to the appellant's retirement.

Constable Wong appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of a one-day suspension without pay for making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The public complainant also appealed the penalty, arguing it was inadequate.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law regarding the burden of proof and the essential elements of the misconduct charge.

However, the Commission exercised its power to substitute its own decision, finding that the evidence supported the misconduct charge on a balance of probabilities.

The Commission upheld the one-day suspension penalty as reasonable.