Frank Marc D'Andrea

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his convictions and penalty of immediate dismissal for discreditable conduct after he assaulted a police sergeant and used abusive language at a police station.

The Commission upheld the assault conviction, finding the appellant's intoxication did not negate the general intent required.

However, the Commission struck one count of discreditable conduct as duplicitous.

On penalty, the Commission found the hearing officer failed to give appropriate weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's 19 years of service and his efforts to address his alcohol consumption.

The penalty of dismissal was set aside and replaced with a reduction in rank to Third Class Constable.

The appellant, a police constable, sought an extension of time to serve a Notice of Appeal regarding his dismissal from the police force following a criminal conviction for assault.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that under Section 24 of Regulation 791, the maximum period within which a Notice of Appeal may be served is 45 days, and therefore it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time.

In the alternative, the Commission found that the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit to justify an extension of time, and dismissed the application.

The Town of Wallaceburg applied to the Ontario Police Commission under section 14(3) of the Police Act to resolve a budget dispute with the Board of Commissioners of Police.

The Town sought an $80,000 reduction in the police budget, proposing cuts to the marine patrol, communications staff, and overall complement.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the proposed reductions would impair the Board's ability to maintain an adequate police force in accordance with the police needs of the municipality.

The City of Brantford Police Association applied to determine the status of certain civilian employees under Section 23(2) of the Police Act, arguing they were not 'senior officers'.

The Ontario Police Commission found that the Director of Planning and Research acted in a confidential capacity and the Supervisor of Central Records acted in a supervisory capacity, making them senior officers.

For the remaining two positions, the Commission found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove they were not senior officers.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the respondent police force was incompetent in its investigation of a series of rock-throwing incidents at his property.

The police force had deployed significant resources, including an OPP tracking dog, physical surveillance, surveillance cameras, and extensive interviews, accumulating over 200 hours of investigation time.

The Commission found that the police force had taken all reasonable steps to locate a suspect and that the complaint of incompetence was unfounded.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Durham Regional Police Force applied to lift the statutory stay of a penalty ordering the appellant police officer to resign or be dismissed.

The appellant had been suspended with pay for nearly three years and was convicted of criminal offences, including obstruction of justice, as well as Police Act offences for corrupt practice and discreditable conduct.

The Commission exercised its discretion under s. 25 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act to lift the stay, citing the combination of the lengthy suspension, the serious nature of the criminal convictions striking at the heart of police duties, and the severity of the penalty imposed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty requiring him to resign or be summarily dismissed after pleading guilty to multiple counts of misconduct, including insubordination and neglect of duty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission first ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to admit new evidence of post-hearing conduct absent special circumstances, and that it could not impose penalties outside the prescribed statutory scheme.

On the merits, the Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the appellant's alcoholism, his extensive prior disciplinary record and psychological assessments indicating an inability to function as a First Class Constable justified the termination of his employment.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of neglect of duty arising from his failure to properly acknowledge and accept an emergency dispatch call regarding a child with scissors stuck in her head.

Although the officer immediately drove toward the scene, he failed to activate the 'Accept Detail' button or advise the dispatcher, instead stating he was off shift in fifteen minutes.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the failure to properly acknowledge the call and proceed without hesitation in the prescribed manner constituted neglect of duty.

An application was brought to determine whether the secretary to the chief of police and the secretary to the deputy chief of police of the Brockville Police Force are "senior officers" under Section 30 of the Police Act.

The Ontario Police Commission found that the secretary to the chief of police qualifies as a senior officer because her duties involve highly confidential matters related to budget preparation, negotiations, and discipline.

However, the Commission ruled that the secretary to the deputy chief of police does not qualify as a senior officer, as it is not necessary for the good management of the force for her to be privy to such confidential information, which could be handled by the chief's secretary.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for deceit under the Police Services Act.

He was charged with negligently making an inaccurate statement in a report regarding an arrest, after failing to consult his notes.

The appellant argued the document was an unsigned draft and had not been formally submitted.

The Commission found the document was intended as a report and was placed in the system, upholding the conviction.

The penalty of forfeiting five days' pay was also upheld, given the seriousness of the inaccuracy in the context of responding to public criticism of the police force.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct for taking merchandise from a store without paying.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of forfeiture of 20 days' vacation leave.

The appellant argued that psychiatric evidence showed he was under severe stress and did not intend to take the items.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the psychiatric evidence provided an explanation but not a lawful excuse for the conduct.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting that the adjudicator had properly considered the appellant's unblemished record and the psychiatric evidence as mitigating factors.

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

The officer had arrested a civilian for mischief after the civilian refused to provide identification while rummaging through garbage.

The Commission upheld the finding that the arrest was unlawful, as the officer admitted he made the arrest solely to obtain identification and knew there was no evidence to support a mischief charge.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's prior disciplinary record, his admission that he would repeat his actions, and his poor attitude toward the public and discipline.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for making an unnecessary arrest.

The officer had stopped a vehicle for excessive speeding and, due to safety concerns, ordered the three young occupants out of the car at gunpoint, pushed the driver to the ground, and searched them.

The hearing officer convicted the appellant and imposed a penalty of the loss of two days' pay.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding ample evidence to support it.

However, the Commission found the officer's conduct awful and the penalty insufficient, increasing the fine to the maximum permitted loss of five days' pay.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty imposed following his conviction on two counts of discreditable conduct.

The charges related to providing false information to investigating officers regarding a friend's bank deposit and falsely endorsing a passport application.

The hearing officer imposed a penalty of reduction in rank to Third Class Constable with conditions for reinstatement.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty modest given the serious nature of the offences, which could have justified dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty imposed following his guilty plea to discreditable conduct for an off-duty impaired driving conviction.

The officer, an admitted alcoholic who had since sought treatment, was reduced in rank to Fourth Class Constable (High) for six months.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty, noting the serious nature of drinking and driving offences and the change in public attitude, while acknowledging the officer's rehabilitative efforts and potential as mitigating factors.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of forced resignation or dismissal after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for shoplifting items worth approximately $70.

The appellant presented psychiatric evidence that he was under severe stress due to his own battle with Hodgkin's disease and his father's serious illness.

The Commission accepted that the stress explained, but did not excuse, the conduct, and upheld the finding of guilt.

However, considering the appellant's 18 years of unblemished service and his mental turmoil, the Commission found dismissal too severe.

The penalty was varied to a reduction in rank from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for at least six months.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of three days off for failing to report for duty.

The Commission found that the original hearing was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Chief of Police presided while the Deputy Chief, who gave the order in question, acted as prosecuting officer.

The Commission also found that the local board's appeal process violated natural justice by proceeding without the appellant and before he received the hearing transcript.

The Commission quashed both decisions and elected to decide the matter itself.

It held that while the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the appellant's leave were unfair, they did not constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to report for duty.

The conviction was upheld, but the penalty was reduced to forfeiture of one day off.

The Town of Napanee applied to the Ontario Police Commission for consent to abolish its municipal police force in order to contract policing services from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

Various community members, police associations, and citizens made representations regarding the adequacy of the current force, the cost savings of the OPP contract, and the impact on current officers and the community.

The Commission determined it had jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of both the existing and proposed policing services.

Finding no evidence that either the current or proposed policing was inadequate, the Commission granted consent to disband the municipal force, subject to conditions ensuring that current members are either offered employment with the OPP or provided with fair severance determined by binding arbitration.