E. Morton

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board to dismiss him due to disability under s. 47(2) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the appeal under s. 47(5) should proceed as a hearing de novo or an appeal on the record.

Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the Commission concluded that the legislature intended for a full evidentiary hearing to take place before the Board, and that the appeal to the Commission must proceed on the record of the Board's proceeding.

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct after stating to his partner that he was so mad he was going to shoot another officer in the head.

The Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of a six-month demotion and anger management, finding the conduct met the elements of the criminal offence of uttering threats.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in principle by characterizing the past-tense utterance as a criminal death threat, which erroneously heightened the seriousness of the misconduct and led to a disproportionate penalty.

The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was varied to a forfeiture of seven days and completion of an anger management program.

The appellant filed a public complaint regarding a police officer's conduct during a traffic stop.

After the Chief of Police concluded the misconduct was not serious enough to warrant a hearing, the appellant requested a review by the Independent Police Review Director under section 71 of the Police Services Act.

The Director directed the Chief to serve a Notice of Hearing but explicitly instructed the Chief not to apply to the Board for a finding that the delay was reasonable under section 83(17), despite more than six months having passed.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges for noncompliance with section 83(17).

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that section 83(17) applies to the pre-charge period including a section 71 review, and failure to obtain the Board's opinion on the reasonableness of the delay resulted in a loss of jurisdiction.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty decision ordering his resignation or dismissal following a guilty plea to two counts of discreditable conduct related to intimate partner violence against two different complainants.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in principle on several grounds, including the treatment of McNeil reporting requirements, double-counting the Service's Intimate Partner Violence Unit as an aggravating factor, discounting character letters, and finding he could not be rehabilitated.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle in the Hearing Officer's application of dispositional factors and confirming the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision ordering his resignation or termination after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for stealing $175 from a member of the public.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in weighing mitigating factors, including his mental health diagnoses, expressions of remorse, and letters of support, and in applying the test for dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded that the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for dishonesty, and the resulting reputational damage to the police service outweighed the mitigating factors and justified dismissal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his discharge under s. 47(2) of the Police Services Act to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Waterloo Police Association (WRPA) and the Police Association of Ontario (PAO) brought motions to intervene in the appeal, and the Chief of Police sought to confirm his status as a respondent.

The Commission granted intervenor status to the PAO as amicus and to the WRPA with participatory rights to be determined.

The Commission also confirmed the Chief of Police as a respondent on the appeal, noting his full participation in the proceeding below, without deciding whether his participation below was proper.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion imposed after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct, insubordination, and unlawful use of force against an Indigenous civilian.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by failing to give appropriate weight to medical evidence of his PTSD and rehabilitation, failing to consider the civilian's lack of complaint, and failing to apply the principle of progressive discipline.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the dispositional factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage to the reputation of the police service, in determining that demotion was the appropriate penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for assaulting a youth in a hospital.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in reopening the hearing to admit prior judicial commentary about his conduct, misapplied those findings as aggravating factors, and failed to properly consider his diagnosis of and rehabilitation from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer erred in his use of the prior judicial commentary as substantive evidence of misconduct and failed to adequately analyze the extensive medical evidence regarding the appellant's PTSD and rehabilitative potential.

A new penalty hearing before a different Hearing Officer was ordered.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision demoting her from first-class to third-class constable for one year, followed by one year as second-class constable, after she pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct relating to her refusal to comply with COVID-19 vaccine mandates at a hockey arena and subsequent inappropriate social media posts.

The Commission allowed the appeal in part, finding that making her progression through the ranks conditional on the 'concurrence' of her unit commander improperly granted unfettered discretion.

The condition was varied to 'as confirmed by her unit commander'.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, as the Hearing Officer made no errors in principle in weighing the appellant's rehabilitative efforts, expressions of remorse, or the consistency of the disposition.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the findings of guilt for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and insubordination, as well as the penalty of dismissal imposed by a hearing officer.

The misconduct involved unauthorized police database queries of individuals connected to his brother's criminal investigation, failure to disclose personal connections to persons of interest in a firearms investigation, and insubordination during a compelled interview.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's factual conclusions reasonable, the admission of evidence from a Criminal Code production order lawful, and the penalty of dismissal appropriate given the serious and repeated nature of the misconduct.

The applicant police officer's appeal of a misconduct finding was previously dismissed by the Commission for failure to perfect the appeal.

The applicant subsequently filed a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the dismissal.

The Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Notice because its prior decision was a final order, rendering the Commission functus officio.

The Commission noted it has no statutory power to reconsider its decisions and that a Notice of Constitutional Question cannot initiate a new proceeding.

The applicant's proper remedy is to seek judicial review.