Emily Morton

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of 32 hours forfeiture.

The officer had submitted profane and insulting comments criticizing equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives to an anonymous virtual suggestion box.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer reasonably concluded the comments were not protected by case-by-case privilege and the proceedings were not an abuse of process.

The Commission also held that the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the officer's freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, as the penalty targeted the abusive language rather than the expression of dissent.

The appellant, a police officer on leave with PTSD, was found guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for refusing to attend interviews, harassing another officer, and making numerous offensive and derogatory posts about the police service on Twitter.

The Hearing Officer ordered her dismissal.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decisions to deny the appellant's requests for an indefinite adjournment and to proceed in absentia.

The Commission found no procedural unfairness and upheld the findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The Commission also conducted a Doré analysis and concluded that the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the appellant's Charter right to freedom of expression.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of unlawful exercise of authority and neglect of duty.

The charges arose from an incident where the appellant continued the arrest of an individual after learning the individual had been mistakenly identified as the target of an investigation, and failed to provide rights to counsel.

The Commission confirmed the finding of unlawful exercise of authority, holding that the continued arrest after the misidentification became known was unlawful.

However, the Commission revoked the finding of neglect of duty, finding the hearing officer erred in law by relying on his own experience rather than uncontradicted evidence regarding whose duty it was to provide rights to counsel.

A new hearing was ordered for the neglect of duty charge and the penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct and ordering his dismissal, as well as the decision to prospectively lift the automatic stay of penalty.

The officer had requested an adjournment for medical reasons, which was denied.

His counsel then withdrew, and the hearing proceeded in his absence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the adjournment was properly denied, proceeding in absentia without confirming the officer had notice or intended to retain new counsel was procedurally unfair.

The Commission also found the Hearing Officer erred in lifting the stay of penalty by failing to consider the merits of the appeal and the prejudice to the officer.

The findings of misconduct were quashed, a new hearing was ordered, and the stay of penalty was restored.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and ordering a forfeiture of 80 hours.

The misconduct stemmed from a $50 donation the appellant made to the Freedom Convoy while off-duty and on an unpaid leave of absence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the finding of misconduct, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the protests were illegal at the time of the donation.

The Commission declined to hear an abuse of process argument raised for the first time on appeal.

Although the Hearing Officer erred by failing to conduct a Doré analysis to balance the appellant's section 2(b) Charter right to freedom of expression against the statutory objectives of the Police Services Act, the Commission conducted the analysis and found the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the right.

The penalty of 80 hours forfeiture was affirmed as reasonable.

The public complainants appealed the penalty imposed on a police officer found guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct in relation to the sudden death investigation of an Indigenous man.

The Hearing Officer had ordered an 18-month demotion and cultural competency training.

The complainants argued the officer should be dismissed, citing the public interest, the importance of reconciliation, and region-specific demands regarding anti-Indigenous racism.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed all relevant factors, including the public interest and reconciliation, and did not err in concluding that dismissal was not warranted.

The Appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from his role as the lead investigator into the sudden death of an Indigenous man, where he prematurely concluded the death was non-criminal and failed to conduct a basic investigation.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable, including the finding that the Appellant's deficient investigation was rooted in racial bias and stereotypes.

The appeal was dismissed and the findings and penalty were confirmed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, optometric services, and prescription expenses.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving the treatments were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examination assessors over the applicant's treatment plans and reports, which lacked sufficient documentation and relied on unsupported assumptions of a concussion.

The application was dismissed.

The Commission previously revoked a Hearing Officer's finding that the respondent officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct for pointing a firearm at the public complainants, substituting a finding of guilt.

The Commission solicited submissions on whether it was in the public interest to vary the penalty at this stage.

Given that the incident occurred over a decade ago and the proceedings had been subject to excessive delay, the Commission determined it was not in the public interest to order a new penalty hearing or to vary the penalty itself.

The original penalty remained unchanged.

Two police officers appealed findings of misconduct for unlawfully arresting two Black youths for assaulting police, and one officer appealed a finding of excessive force for punching a third youth.

The public complainants cross-appealed the finding that the officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct for pointing his firearm at them.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in his analysis of arrest powers under the Criminal Code but substituted its own finding of misconduct for the unlawful arrests.

The Commission confirmed the finding of excessive force for the punch.

Finally, the Commission revoked the not guilty finding regarding the firearm, finding the Hearing Officer erred by failing to consider the Use of Force Regulation and improperly relying on his own experience, and substituted a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct.

The applicant sought $2,000 for optometric services following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the vision issues were not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving causation on a balance of probabilities, noting the significant delay in reporting vision issues and the lack of expert evidence linking the symptoms to the accident.

The application for benefits, along with claims for an award and interest, was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct for allegedly making racist and sexually suggestive comments to a civilian employee during a ride-along.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing, finding that the hearing officer made fundamental errors in his credibility analysis.

Specifically, the hearing officer improperly shifted the burden of proof to the appellant by requiring him to explain why the complainant would fabricate the allegations, and unreasonably failed to consider the impact of subsequent friendly text messages between the parties on the complainant's credibility.

The applicant, the former Chief of the Thunder Bay Police Service, was charged with misconduct under the Police Services Act.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant resigned and brought a motion to quash the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent consented to the motion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that because the applicant had resigned, she was no longer a police officer under the Act, and pursuant to section 90(1), the Commission lost jurisdiction to proceed.

The misconduct counts were dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of misconduct (neglect of duty and deceit) and the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer.

The misconduct arose from the appellant's failure to properly investigate a suspected impaired driver and his subsequent false explanations to his supervisor and Professional Standards Bureau.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer did not misapprehend the expert evidence, drew reasonable inferences from the facts, and appropriately weighed the dispositional factors in imposing the penalty of dismissal.

The respondent, a former Deputy Chief of Police, was subject to disciplinary hearings under the Police Services Act.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the respondent resigned from his position.

The Commission determined that it lost jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing because the respondent was no longer a 'police officer' within the meaning of the Act.

The counts of misconduct were dismissed.