Garth Goodhew

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for a minimum of one year, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The charges stemmed from an off-duty assault on his child and the improper retention and storage of police property and documents over a 14-year period.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer properly weighed the mitigating factors, including the officer's exemplary employment history, against the seriousness and repetitive nature of the misconduct.

The penalty was deemed reasonable and consistent with similar cases.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and neglect of duty, as well as a six-month demotion penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's decision, applying the Dunsmuir standard of review.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons regarding the use of force and the failure to provide medical assistance were insufficient and unreasonable, revoking those convictions.

However, the Commission upheld the conviction for neglect of duty regarding the failure to document the complainant's injury.

The penalty was consequently reduced to a forfeiture of three days' pay.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

The officer had been found guilty of failing to ensure a subpoenaed witness remained at court to testify in a careless driving prosecution, resulting in the charge being dismissed.

On appeal, the officer argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended the evidence and erred in assessing the credibility of the witness over the conflicting testimony of a court officer and the Crown Prosecutor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable and not void of evidentiary foundation.

The penalty of a 3-day suspension without pay was also upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and a penalty of a 3-day suspension for neglect of duty.

The charge arose after the officer allegedly told a subpoenaed witness in a careless driving trial that he did not need to stay, resulting in the charge being dismissed.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence and erred in assessing witness credibility.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and not void of evidentiary foundation.

The penalty was also upheld as appropriate.

The applicant police officer brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to comply with the 30-day time limit under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant filed his notice of appeal over 60 days after receiving the hearing officer's decision staying the disciplinary proceedings.

The Commission held that the 30-day statutory time limit is mandatory and cannot be extended under the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after being found guilty of neglect of duty and deceit.

The officer had feigned and exaggerated injuries from an on-duty motorcycle accident to evade work and collect WSIB benefits, which was exposed by surveillance video showing him engaging in strenuous physical activities.

The appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh character evidence on appeal, which the Commission dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

On the main appeal, the Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Williams sentencing factors.

The Commission agreed that the officer's repeated deceit and breach of trust constituted serious misconduct akin to theft of time, irreparably damaging his credibility and the reputation of the police service, justifying the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to third-class constable for six months, which was imposed after she pled guilty to discreditable conduct stemming from an off-duty criminal conviction for causing a disturbance.

At the disciplinary hearing, the parties had presented a joint submission for a lesser penalty of demotion to second-class constable.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission without providing notice or reasons.

On appeal, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer violated principles of fairness by failing to give notice or an opportunity to make submissions before departing from the joint submission.

The appeal was allowed on consent, the original penalty was revoked, and the jointly proposed penalty was substituted.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion after he was arrested and convicted of impaired driving in Ohio while off-duty.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by relying on his no-contest plea in Ohio, admitting breathalyzer evidence that did not meet Canadian standards, and failing to stay the proceedings due to the destruction of audio and video tapes by Ohio authorities.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's evidentiary rulings or application of Canadian law to the foreign conduct.

The penalty of demotion from First-Class to Third-Class Constable for two years was upheld as reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct and the need for general deterrence.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision finding a police officer not guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority under the Police Services Act.

The officer had arrested a 17-year-old student without a warrant based on information from a confidential informant about a drug transaction.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the Storrey test for warrantless arrests and the Debot test for confidential informants.

The Commission held that the officer had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, and the hearing officer's decision was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appellant appealed a decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of neglect of duty.

The respondent had seized the appellant's motorcycle without a warrant and failed to file a report with a Justice of the Peace as required by section 489.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the respondent had a lawful excuse for the failure due to the lack of clear policy from the police service regarding off-premises seizures and the general practice in Ontario at the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a two-year demotion imposed for discreditable conduct after he drove a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol and was involved in a single-vehicle collision.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by treating the officer's delay in reporting the collision as an aggravating factor, as this allegation had been withdrawn on consent.

Given the mitigating factors, including a guilty plea and positive performance evaluations, the Commission allowed the appeal in part and reduced the penalty to a one-year demotion.

The appellant, a Toronto police officer, appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that found the respondent officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant alleged he was unlawfully detained when the respondent locked him in an interview room while he provided a witness statement, and that the Hearing Officer was biased because he belonged to the same police service as the respondent.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias as the appellant failed to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity and provided no evidence of actual bias.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's findings that there was no unlawful detention, as there was no compulsion or coercion, and that locking the door was a reasonable security measure.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of misconduct arising from an unprovoked assault on a handcuffed prisoner accompanied by discriminatory comments.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in principle by disregarding positive character evidence and failing to properly apply the usefulness test.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant factors, including mitigating ones, and reasonably concluded that the egregious nature of the misconduct and the bias demonstrated rendered the officer no longer useful to the police service.

The appellant, a Toronto police officer, appealed a hearing officer's decision finding the respondent officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the respondent locked the appellant in an interview room while he was providing a witness statement regarding a complaint he had made.

The appellant alleged he was unlawfully detained and that the hearing officer was biased.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias and concluding that the hearing officer's findings of fact, credibility assessments, and application of the objective test for discreditable conduct were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of a loss of five days' pay imposed after he was found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to submit an Arrest Report prior to a fingerprint and court date.

The appellant argued the penalty was excessive and that the hearing officer erred by considering his entire disciplinary history rather than just a prior informal reprimand for the same misconduct.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that an officer's entire disciplinary history is a relevant consideration for progressive discipline and that the hearing officer applied the correct dispositional principles without manifest error.

The appellant, a police officer with a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse, appealed a hearing officer's decision ordering him to resign or be dismissed after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from his criminal conviction for possessing marijuana while suspended for a previous incident of smoking marijuana at work.

The appellant argued the hearing officer failed to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate his disability and his subsequent rehabilitation.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer appropriately weighed the employer's accommodation efforts against the appellant's repeated criminal misconduct, history of deception, and the potential damage to the police service's reputation.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of resignation or dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from his heavy marijuana use, which resulted in a criminal conviction for possession of a controlled substance.

The Appellant argued that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider his substance abuse disability, his rehabilitation efforts, and the Service's duty to accommodate.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the Service's accommodation efforts against the Appellant's repeated criminal misconduct, history of deception, and the potential damage to the Service's reputation.

The penalty was upheld as reasonable and just.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct related to unauthorized secondary employment.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of unauthorized secondary employment during the cross-examination of the appellant, effectively splitting its case.

The Commission also found that the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt lacked an evidentiary foundation and adequate reasoning, as the appellant's undisputed testimony indicated he had received verbal approval for his secondary employment.

The conviction was revoked.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct related to unauthorized secondary employment.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence regarding the lack of authorization for the secondary employment during the cross-examination of the appellant, effectively splitting its case.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to provide adequate reasoning for rejecting the appellant's undisputed testimony that he had received verbal approval for his business activities.

The conviction was revoked due to procedural unfairness and lack of evidentiary foundation.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-hour forfeiture of pay.

The conviction arose from the officer's failure to pay for a wood splitter purchased at an auction while off duty until after he was interviewed by Professional Standards.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that a valid public complaint had been initiated.

The Commission also upheld the 16-hour forfeiture penalty, finding it within the reasonable range given the officer's prior disciplinary history, but varied the penalty by deleting the specific directions regarding how and when the hours were to be served.