Frederic G. Farrell

The appellant, a 20-year veteran police officer, appealed his convictions for misconduct related to showing a scrotum piercing to a colleague and placing a dead cat on another colleague's vehicle, as well as the penalty of dismissal imposed for nine incidents of careless handling of his service firearm.

The Commission upheld the conviction regarding the piercing, finding it brought discredit to the police service.

The Commission overturned the conviction regarding the dead cat, finding the matter had been properly resolved informally.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal for the firearm incidents, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of repeated, unprovoked gunplay by a police officer.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for two counts of discreditable conduct and the penalty of dismissal imposed for a third count of careless handling of a firearm.

The Commission upheld the conviction for showing a scrotum piercing to a colleague, finding it brought discredit to the police service.

However, the Commission overturned the conviction regarding a practical joke involving a dead cat, as the matter had been properly addressed through informal resolution.

The Commission upheld the penalty of resignation or dismissal for the firearm charge, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of nine separate incidents of pointing or mishandling a service weapon.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for two counts of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal for a third count (careless handling of a firearm).

The Commission upheld the conviction for showing a scrotum piercing to a colleague, finding it brought discredit to the police service.

The Commission allowed the appeal on the second count (placing a dead cat on a colleague's vehicle) because the matter had been properly resolved through informal resolution.

The Commission upheld the penalty of resignation or dismissal for the firearm charge, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of nine separate incidents of pointing or pressing a service weapon against colleagues.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct under the Police Services Act arising from allegations of sexual assault and attempted murder while off-duty in the Dominican Republic.

The Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error in accepting the complainant's uncorroborated evidence.

The Commission concluded that the complainant's testimony was incredible, inconsistent, and unsupported by a proper investigation, meaning the charges were not proven on clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed findings of guilt for four counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit, as well as the penalty of demotion to 3rd class Constable.

The misconduct arose from his failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and his subsequent false statements to an investigating officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the convictions, finding clear and convincing evidence of the misconduct.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, finding the original demotion too severe given the appellant's 22-year unblemished record.

The penalty was reduced to a demotion to 2nd class Constable for two years.

The Appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of discreditable conduct (attempting to dissuade a fellow officer from laying criminal charges and assaulting that officer).

The Commission admitted fresh evidence on appeal but found it would not have affected the outcome of the original hearing.

Applying the standard of review that a Hearing Officer's findings of fact and credibility should only be overturned if void of evidentiary foundation, the Commission upheld the convictions and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed three findings of guilt (one count of insubordination and two counts of deceit) and the penalty of a twelve-month reduction in rank imposed by a Hearing Officer.

The charges arose from the officer's investigation of a domestic assault and his subsequent failure to answer questions during an internal investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding that the order to answer questions served a legitimate public purpose and did not violate the officer's Charter rights.

However, the Commission set aside the two deceit convictions, concluding that the Hearing Officer failed to establish that the officer had an intention to deceive when making his notes or testifying in court.

The penalty was varied to a forfeiture of 24 hours' pay.

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 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, 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 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 police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of reduction in rank from first-class to fourth-class constable for one year, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct stemming from a criminal conviction for uttering a death threat.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to treat the guilty plea as a mitigating factor and by treating the officer's defence strategy at his criminal trial as an aggravating factor.

The Commission also found the penalty was harsh and excessive given the officer's unblemished employment record and the principle of rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied to a reduction in rank to second-class constable for one year.

The appellants, two police officers, appealed a disciplinary penalty of a nine-month demotion in rank for discreditable conduct.

The officers had engaged in a scheme of sending unwanted mail-order items and subscriptions to the homes of three superior officers.

The Commission found that while the misconduct was serious and not merely a practical joke, the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the officers' unblemished service records, positive performance evaluations, and genuine remorse.

The Commission varied the penalty to a four-month demotion in rank.

The Town of Tillsonburg and the Tillsonburg Police Services Board applied for consent to abolish the Tillsonburg Police Service to enter into an integrated contract policing arrangement with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposal to determine if it would provide adequate and effective police services and if members were treated fairly regarding severance.

The Commission found the proposed officer-to-citizen ratio significantly lower than neighboring communities and conditioned its consent on adding 7 front-line officers, maintaining civilian support staff for policing duties, completing facility renovations, and directing unresolved severance issues to arbitration.

The Village of Point Edward applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish its municipal police service and enter into a contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for policing services.

The Commission reviewed the OPP proposal, which included an integrated detachment model, increased facility size, and enhanced equipment and communications.

Applying historical and geographical comparative tests, the Commission found that the proposal would provide adequate and effective police services to the community.

Consent to abolish the police service was granted, subject to the condition that the parties reach an agreement on termination and severance for existing members, or proceed to arbitration.