Frederic G. Farrell, Q.C.

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 Commission upheld the findings of guilt, finding clear and convincing evidence of the misconduct.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the original penalty too severe given the appellant's 22-year unblemished record, and varied the penalty to a demotion to 2nd class Constable for two years.

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, his failure to ensure his subordinate investigated, and his subsequent false statement to an investigating officer.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty to a demotion to 2nd class constable for two years, finding the original penalty unduly emphasized punishment and failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's 22-year unblemished record and potential for rehabilitation.

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 same officer.

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

Applying the standard of review, the Commission held that the Hearing Officer's findings on credibility and guilt were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld.

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 same officer.

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

Applying the standard of review, the Commission held that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and credibility assessments were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld.

The appellant appealed the penalty of a five-day suspension imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the unauthorized use of the CPIC system.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce new documentary evidence, which the Commission dismissed as the evidence was not relevant, significant, or credible.

On the merits of the appeal, the Commission reviewed the penalty and found that a five-day suspension was a fair and appropriate sanction for the breach of confidence, consistent with prior decisions involving similar misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a civilian complainant, appealed the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the unauthorized use of the CPIC system.

The officer had used CPIC to obtain information about the appellant, who was dating the officer's former girlfriend, and subsequently threatened the appellant.

The officer pled guilty and received a five-day suspension for this specific count.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it lacked credibility and relevance.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the five-day suspension, concluding it was a fair and appropriate penalty that fell within the acceptable range for unauthorized CPIC use, balancing deterrence with the officer's potential for rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed the penalty of a five-day suspension imposed on a police officer for one count of discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce new documentary evidence, which was dismissed as the evidence did not meet the Palmer test.

On the main appeal, the Commission reviewed the penalty and found that a five-day suspension was fair, appropriate, and consistent with similar cases involving unauthorized CPIC checks.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

The charges arose from his investigation of a domestic assault and his subsequent testimony at the accused's trial, as well as his failure to promptly obey an order to provide a written report during the ensuing disciplinary investigation.

The Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding that the order to provide a statement for disciplinary purposes did not violate section 7 of the Charter and that the officer failed to comply in a timely manner even after related criminal proceedings concluded.

However, the Commission set aside both deceit convictions, finding the Hearing Officer failed to establish clear and convincing evidence of an intention to deceive regarding the officer's notes and court testimony.

Consequently, the penalty was varied from a one-year demotion to a forfeiture of 24 hours' pay for the single remaining conviction of insubordination.

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

The charges arose from his investigation of a domestic assault and his subsequent testimony at the accused's trial, as well as his failure to promptly answer questions ordered by a superior during a disciplinary investigation.

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

However, the Commission set aside the two deceit convictions, concluding that the Hearing Officer failed to establish clear and convincing evidence of an intention to deceive regarding the officer's notes and court testimony.

The penalty was varied to a forfeiture of 24 hours' pay for the single remaining count of insubordination.

The applicant, a complainant in a police disciplinary matter, sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for improperly accessing the CPIC system.

The applicant argued he was denied full participation in the hearing process, particularly regarding plea bargaining that resulted in the withdrawal of other charges.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the novel issues raised concerning a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the fundamental fairness of the proceedings warranted an appeal under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant, a first class constable, 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 was waving a baton near his head.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably rejected the appellant's defence of non-insane automatism based on expert psychiatric evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty.

It found that the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the significant workplace harassment the appellant had endured, which acted as provocation, and to the appellant's strong potential for rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a reduction in rank to third class constable for two years, subject to a detailed return to work plan.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalties imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct, as well as the withdrawal of other disciplinary charges.

The Commission held a preliminary hearing to determine the appellant's standing as a public complainant and its jurisdiction over withdrawn charges.

The Commission found that the appellant's statement to the OPP during a criminal investigation did not constitute a public complaint under Part V of the Police Services Act.

The appellant only had standing to appeal the penalty for one count arising from a later written complaint.

Furthermore, the Commission ruled it had no statutory authority to hear appeals regarding disciplinary charges that were withdrawn by the prosecutor, as no decision had been rendered on those charges.

The appellant brought an application under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act seeking leave to appeal decisions arising from disciplinary proceedings against a police constable.

The parties agreed that two preliminary matters needed to be determined before the leave to appeal application could proceed.

Two off-duty police officers appealed findings of neglect of duty for failing to report a motor vehicle collision involving their police vehicle and a civilian vehicle.

The officers argued there was no clear evidence of an accident, the hearing was procedurally unfair, the charges were improperly laid, and the reporting order was unclear.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments were supported by evidence, the procedural limitations did not deny natural justice, the Chief of Police had ultimate statutory authority to lay charges, and the reporting order was clear.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of uttering a death threat against a fellow officer during an altercation at a hockey arena.

He pled guilty to discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and was penalized with a reduction in rank to second-class constable for six months.

The appellant appealed the penalty, arguing it was excessive and failed to account for his excellent service record and the stress of his marital breakdown.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, the need for deterrence, and the principles of progressive discipline, noting a prior recent disciplinary incident.

The Town of Amherstburg applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Amherstburg Police Service and the Anderdon Township Police Service to create a single municipal police service for the newly amalgamated Town of Amherstburg.

The Commission reviewed the proposal to ensure it provided adequate and effective police services under the Police Services Act.

Finding that the new arrangement would improve police-to-population ratios, provide 24-hour coverage to all areas, and enhance facilities and equipment, the Commission granted consent to the abolition.

The Town of North Perth applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Listowel Police Service and contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for policing services.

The Commission reviewed the OPP proposal and found that it would provide adequate and effective policing for the newly restructured municipality, noting the increased staffing, enhanced capabilities, and appropriate facilities.

As no agreement had been reached regarding severance for the uniformed members of the Listowel Police Service, the Commission ordered that any unresolved severance issues be referred to arbitration.

Consent to abolish the police service was granted subject to compliance with the arbitration order.

The Town of Kingsville applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Kingsville Police Service, following a municipal restructuring that amalgamated the town with two neighbouring townships.

The municipality proposed to contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for an integrated detachment to provide policing services.

The Commission reviewed the proposal and found that it would provide adequate and effective policing.

The Commission also noted that the statutory requirements regarding severance for the chief of police and the police association had been met through agreements to refer outstanding matters to arbitration.

The Commission granted consent to the abolition of the municipal police service.