Garth Goodhew

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing his motion to quash a disciplinary charge for delay.

The appellant had subsequently pled guilty to the charge and served the penalty.

The Commission held that the appeal was not moot, but that the appellant had waived his right to appeal by pleading guilty without reserving his right to challenge jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the Commission found that the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act commenced when investigators obtained independent witness statements, providing a sufficient body of factual information to create a reasonable belief of misconduct.

As the Notice of Hearing was served within six months of that date, the appeal was dismissed.

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

The conviction arose from an unpaid debt for snow removal services related to his secondary employment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Police Services Act regarding the timeliness of the complaint and that there was sufficient evidence the appellant received the invoices.

However, the Commission varied the penalty to an 8-hour forfeiture, concluding that the original penalty was excessive for minor off-duty misconduct and that severe general deterrence was not required.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for discreditable conduct and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal, arising from a false affidavit she swore regarding a parking ticket.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction because the Notice of Hearing was served more than six months after the investigators had a sufficient body of factual information to support the allegations, violating the mandatory limitation period in s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The convictions and penalty were quashed.

Constable Batista appealed his conviction for unnecessary exercise of authority after deploying a Taser twice on a handcuffed, non-resistant protestor.

The complainant, Paul Smith, cross-appealed the penalty of a reprimand, arguing it was manifestly unfit.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed both appeals.

The Commission found no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the use of the Taser was unreasonable under the circumstances.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting that the officer's loss of acting rank and salary, combined with the reprimand, constituted a serious consequence that adequately addressed deterrence.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his convictions on three counts of discreditable conduct under the Code of Conduct.

The allegations involved off-duty conduct of a sexual nature, including inappropriate comments, unwanted physical contact, and a historical sexual assault prior to his employment as a police officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility, rejecting his evidence, and applying the standard of clear and convincing evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by an evidentiary foundation and were reasonable in light of the evidence as a whole.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct and was found guilty of one count of corrupt practice.

The misconduct involved importing khat while returning from Kenya, attempting to use his police status to avoid customs scrutiny, and lying to officials.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer properly balanced the relevant factors, including the serious nature of the misconduct, the damage to the police service's reputation, and the lack of rehabilitation potential, and upheld the penalty of dismissal.