F. Jennifer Lynch

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was involved in an incident at his son's hockey game and began investigating it.

His superior ordered him to cease his involvement and turn the matter over to the local police force.

The appellant continued to interview witnesses and have statements typed at the police station.

He was convicted of disobeying a lawful order and received an admonition.

On appeal, he argued his actions were personal and not part of his police function.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that he was acting as a police officer and could not indirectly do what he was ordered not to do.

The appellant police officer was convicted of narcotics offences and subsequently dismissed from the police force.

He appealed his dismissal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing that the disciplinary hearing should have been adjourned pending his criminal appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and that suspension rather than termination was the appropriate penalty in the interim.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation to stay Police Act proceedings pending a criminal appeal, and holding that the police force should not be prejudiced by having to maintain a convicted officer on its complement.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct after uttering a profanity at a police station following a discussion about a parking ticket.

He appealed the conviction and penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the isolated use of the profanity in the presence of only a few officers did not carry the potential to bring wide discredit upon the reputation of the police force.

The conviction and punishment were quashed.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed the penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay following a conviction for discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from an altercation involving the appellant, two other off-duty officers, and a civilian, which later escalated to involve members of the local police force.

The Commission found no error in the trial officer's assessment of the evidence or the penalty imposed, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a police officer with 31 years of service, appealed his demotion from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant after being found unfit for duty due to alcohol consumption.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed his appeal against conviction, rejecting arguments under section 11(d) of the Charter.

However, considering his prior good service, his efforts at rehabilitation through Alcoholics Anonymous, and the financial penalties already suffered, the Commission varied the sentence.

The appellant was reinstated to the rank of Staff Sergeant without the requirement to rewrite qualifying examinations.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty of dismissal from the force for discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from an off-duty incident where the appellant, while intoxicated and bearing a black eye, attempted to cash a post-dated police cheque at a bank, used profanity when refused, and attempted to rip up the cheque.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found no error in the original hearing or the subsequent appeal to the Board of Commissioners of Police.

Given the incident and the appellant's long list of previous offences, the Commission affirmed the conviction and the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for deceit under the Police Act.

He had been charged with willfully making a false statement to a superior officer regarding how he obtained radar readings for a speeding ticket.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer had implicitly accepted the appellant's evidence that he did not make the alleged false statement, and therefore could not have intended to commit the offence.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed her conviction for neglect of duty after a prisoner escaped from her custody.

The appellant was one of three officers at the scene of an arrest where four individuals were taken into custody.

While the prisoners were outside, one escaped into the bush.

The appellant, who was closest to the escaping prisoner, failed to immediately pursue him or notify another officer who was leaving the scene.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the escape of a secured prisoner raised a reasonable assumption of carelessness, compounded by the appellant's failure to seek assistance.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and penalty of an admonishment were confirmed.

The appellant, a Corporal and drum-major of the OPP Pipes and Drums Band, appealed his conviction for deceit and subsequent reduction in rank to Constable.

He had initialled overtime forms for two band members, knowing the hours claimed did not reflect actual travel time but rather normal driving time.

The Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the appellant knowingly signed false statements in official documents and his altruistic motives were irrelevant to liability.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against sentence, varying the punishment from a reduction in rank to the forfeiture of 20 days of leave, noting his previously unimpeachable character and the lax enforcement of overtime rules.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed his conviction and penalty of reduction in rank to Police Constable, First Class for discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant took up residence with the mother of a victim in an incest case he was investigating, prior to the disposal of the criminal charges against the victim's father.

The appellant withdrew the appeal against conviction but argued the penalty was harsh because his relationship did not prejudice the criminal case or cause adverse public reaction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the likelihood of discredit must be viewed in advance by a reasonable person, and the penalty was commensurate with the likely discredit.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct under the Police Act.

The charge was based on his criminal conviction for corruptly attempting to obtain a valuable consideration.

The appellant argued that the Police Act proceedings were premature because his criminal conviction was under appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that a lower court's judgment has implications even while under appeal, and that Police Act proceedings need not await the exhaustion of all criminal appeal avenues.