E. E. Kelly Culin

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of insubordination and discreditable conduct against two police officers.

The appellant alleged the officers engaged in racial profiling and misconduct during an encounter in his apartment building, and argued the Hearing Officer displayed bias and made procedural errors.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest errors in the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and concluding that the clear and convincing evidence standard for misconduct was not met.

The Commission also dismissed a motion by the respondents to introduce fresh evidence regarding the Hearing Officer's written decision.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of insubordination and discreditable conduct against two police officers.

The charges arose from a confrontation between the appellant and the officers, who were in plainclothes executing a search warrant in the appellant's apartment building.

The appellant alleged racial profiling and bias by the Hearing Officer.

The Commission dismissed a motion by the respondents to introduce fresh evidence explaining discrepancies between the Hearing Officer's oral and written decisions.

Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and concluding that the Hearing Officer's conduct did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant, a staff sergeant with 29 years of service, appealed a disciplinary penalty imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

While off duty, the appellant drove impaired, struck another vehicle, directed racial slurs at the vehicle's owner, and assaulted him.

The Hearing Officer imposed an agreed-upon penalty of demotion to sergeant for one year, but ordered that the appellant must enter the promotional process to regain his former rank rather than returning automatically.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that section 68(1)(c) of the Police Services Act permits a Hearing Officer to specify a demotion that requires an officer to compete for promotion, and that the penalty was not harsh or excessive given the serious nature of the misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of demotion to sergeant for one year, after which he would be required to compete for promotion to his former rank of staff sergeant.

The penalty arose from off-duty conduct resulting in criminal convictions for impaired driving and assault, during which the appellant used racial slurs against a citizen.

The appellant argued the indeterminate nature of the demotion was illegal under the Police Services Act and was harsh and excessive.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Act permits a hearing officer to specify a demotion period that requires an officer to meet normal promotional requirements, and that the penalty was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a disciplinary penalty of demotion to sergeant for one year, followed by a requirement to compete for promotion to his former rank of staff sergeant.

The penalty arose from off-duty conduct involving impaired driving, racial slurs, and assault, for which he received criminal convictions.

The appellant argued the indeterminate nature of the demotion was illegal under section 68(1)(c) of the Police Services Act and was harsh and excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory language permitting a hearing officer to specify the 'manner and period' of demotion includes requiring an officer to meet normal promotional requirements, and that the penalty was appropriate given the serious misconduct.

The appellant, a staff sergeant with 29 years of service, appealed a disciplinary penalty imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

While off duty, the appellant drove impaired, struck a parked car, directed racial slurs at the vehicle's owner, and assaulted him.

He was convicted criminally of impaired driving and assault.

The Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of demotion to sergeant for one year, after which the appellant would be required to enter the normal promotional process to regain his rank.

The appellant argued this indeterminate demotion was illegal under section 68(1)(c) of the Police Services Act and was harsh and excessive.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the statute permits a demotion requiring an officer to compete for promotion, and that the penalty was appropriate given the highly offensive nature of the conduct.

The applicant police service brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a disciplinary penalty imposed on the respondent police officer pending his appeal.

The officer had pled guilty to discreditable conduct following criminal convictions for impaired driving and assault, and agreed to a 12-month demotion, but appealed the condition that he must re-qualify for promotion afterward.

The Commission held it had the authority under section 25(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to lift the stay.

Finding that the appeal was not frivolous but that the officer would suffer no practical prejudice by serving the undisputed 12-month demotion while awaiting the appeal, the Commission granted the motion and lifted the stay.

The York Regional Police Service brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a disciplinary penalty imposed on Staff Sergeant Kyle pending his appeal.

The officer had pled guilty to discreditable conduct following criminal convictions for impaired driving and assault, and agreed to a 12-month demotion to sergeant.

He appealed only the hearing officer's direction regarding his status after the 12-month period.

The Commission held it had the authority under section 25(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to lift the stay.

Finding that the officer would suffer no practical prejudice by commencing the undisputed 12-month demotion while his appeal on the post-demotion status proceeded, the Commission granted the motion and lifted the stay.

The appellant, a civilian complainant, appealed the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the unauthorized use of the CPIC system.

The officer had used CPIC to obtain information about the appellant, who was dating the officer's former girlfriend, and subsequently threatened the appellant.

The officer pled guilty and received a five-day suspension for this specific count.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it lacked credibility and relevance.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the five-day suspension, concluding it was a fair and appropriate penalty that fell within the acceptable range for unauthorized CPIC use, balancing deterrence with the officer's potential for rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed the penalty of a five-day suspension imposed on a police officer for one count of discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce new documentary evidence, which was dismissed as the evidence did not meet the Palmer test.

On the main appeal, the Commission reviewed the penalty and found that a five-day suspension was fair, appropriate, and consistent with similar cases involving unauthorized CPIC checks.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the penalty of a five-day suspension imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the unauthorized use of the CPIC system.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce new documentary evidence, which the Commission dismissed as the evidence was not relevant, significant, or credible.

On the merits of the appeal, the Commission reviewed the penalty and found that a five-day suspension was a fair and appropriate sanction for the breach of confidence, consistent with prior decisions involving similar misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The applicant argued he was denied full participation in the hearing process, particularly regarding plea bargaining between the prosecutor and the officer.

The Commission noted that while leave to appeal is not automatic, the Police Services Act's Declaration of Principles emphasizes cooperation with communities and respect for victims.

Given the novel issues concerning a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the mandate for fundamental fairness, the Commission granted leave to appeal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal after he pointed his loaded service pistol at a fellow officer.

The incident occurred after the fellow officer waved a baton near the appellant's head.

The appellant argued he was in a state of non-insane automatism due to ongoing workplace harassment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer's rejection of the automatism defence was supported by evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty from dismissal to a two-year reduction in rank to third class constable, finding the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the significant provocation the appellant faced from his colleagues and his strong potential for rehabilitation.

The applicant, a complainant in a police disciplinary matter, sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for improperly accessing the CPIC system.

The applicant argued he was denied full participation in the hearing process, particularly regarding plea bargaining that resulted in the withdrawal of other charges.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the novel issues raised concerning a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the fundamental fairness of the proceedings warranted an appeal under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charge arose after the appellant pointed his loaded service pistol at a fellow officer who had been waving a baton near his head.

The appellant argued he was in a state of non-insane automatism due to ongoing workplace harassment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably preferred expert evidence that the appellant's actions were an explosion of anger rather than dissociation.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the significant provocation from fellow officers and the appellant's strong potential for rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a two-year reduction in rank to third class constable, subject to a detailed return to work plan.

The appellant, a first class constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charge arose after the appellant pointed his loaded service pistol at a fellow officer who was waving a baton near his head.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably rejected the appellant's defence of non-insane automatism based on expert psychiatric evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty.

It found that the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the significant workplace harassment the appellant had endured, which acted as provocation, and to the appellant's strong potential for rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a reduction in rank to third class constable for two years, subject to a detailed return to work plan.

The applicant complainant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The officer had pleaded guilty to certain charges while others were withdrawn following a plea bargain from which the complainant was excluded.

The respondent police service argued that leave should be denied based on the strict test for interlocutory appeals under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Commission held that it is not bound by the civil rules and has broad discretion under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act to grant leave where 'appropriate'.

Given the novel issues regarding a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the Act's Declaration of Principles, the Commission granted leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a finding of not guilty of neglect of duty by a Hearing Officer with respect to a police sergeant.

The appellant alleged the sergeant neglected his duty by failing to promptly arrest her ex-husband for domestic assault and seize his firearms.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence and that the sergeant acted reasonably and professionally in handling the situation, given the appellant's primary concern at the time was retrieving her belongings rather than immediate fear.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police sergeant not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged the sergeant failed to promptly arrest her ex-husband and seize his firearms following her report of a domestic assault.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence, noting that the appellant's primary concern at the time was retrieving her belongings, not immediate fear, and that the sergeant exercised reasonable discretion in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The appellant alleged that the officer failed to promptly arrest her ex-husband and seize his firearms following her report of a domestic assault.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by the evidence.

The Commission held that the officer exercised his discretion reasonably given the circumstances, including the appellant's primary desire to retrieve her belongings and her request that her ex-husband not be arrested in front of their son.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's arguments that the hearing process was procedurally flawed.