G. Douglas Smith

The appellant police officer was charged with discreditable conduct after voluntarily entering into a Peace Bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code to resolve allegations of sexual assault and criminal harassment.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty based solely on the Peace Bond and the underlying Information.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that entering into a Peace Bond is not an admission of guilt and does not constitute clear and convincing evidence of misconduct.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error of law, as a reasonable person would not view entering a Peace Bond to resolve unproven allegations as conduct likely to bring discredit upon the police service.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction overturned.

The appellant police officer was charged with criminal harassment and sexual assault following a complaint by his former partner.

The criminal charges were withdrawn after the appellant agreed to enter into a Peace Bond under s. 810 of the Criminal Code.

Subsequently, the appellant was charged with discreditable conduct under the Code of Conduct for entering into the Peace Bond.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty based solely on the Information, the Recognizance, and the transcript of the s. 810 proceedings.

On appeal, the Commission held that voluntarily entering into a Peace Bond does not, in itself, constitute clear and convincing evidence of discreditable conduct.

The Commission noted that a Peace Bond is a preventative measure, not a punishment for past conduct, and the appellant had explicitly denied the underlying allegations.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was overturned.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty.

The conviction was based solely on the officer voluntarily entering into a Peace Bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code following allegations of domestic violence and harassment, which he denied.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that entering into a Peace Bond is not an admission of criminal conduct and does not, on its own, constitute clear and convincing evidence of discreditable conduct likely to bring the police service into disrepute.

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 police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of one count of neglect of duty and two counts of deceit, which resulted in his dismissal.

The charges stemmed from allegations that he malingered on calls, made false statements to his supervisor about his activities, and destroyed a computer disk containing records.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services allowed the appeal and overturned all convictions.

The Commission found no evidence to support the malingering charge, noting the hearing officer accepted the officer's logs showing he was patrolling.

The Commission also found no evidence of intent to mislead regarding the statements, and concluded the destruction of the computer disk was done in accordance with established police practice.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for neglect of duty and deceit, and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and overturned all convictions.

The Commission found no evidence to support the neglect of duty charge, noting the Hearing Officer's contradictory findings regarding the officer's notes.

The Commission also found no evidence of intent to mislead to support the first deceit charge, and concluded the officer had a lawful excuse for destroying a computer disk as he was following established practice.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for neglect of duty and deceit, as well as the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and overturned all convictions.

The Commission found no evidence to support the finding of malingering, noting a contradiction in the Hearing Officer's conclusions regarding the officer's notes.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intent to mislead for the deceit charges, and that the officer had a lawful excuse for destroying a computer disk in accordance with established practice.

Two police officers appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Code of Conduct for consuming alcohol while on duty and leaving their detail without permission.

The appellants argued the Hearing Officer erred in finding they were on duty at the relevant time.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding clear and convincing evidence—including sign-in sheets, authorization for a double shift, and the officers' own notes—supported the conclusion that they were on duty.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time for each offence, emphasizing the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty and the need for general deterrence.

Two police officers appealed their disciplinary convictions for consuming alcohol while on duty and neglect of duty, arguing the Hearing Officer erred in finding they were on duty at the relevant time.

One officer also appealed his penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding there was clear and convincing evidence that the officers were on duty, including authorization for a double shift, use of police vehicles, and sign-in sheets.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, balancing the officer's unblemished record against the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty.

The appellants, two police detectives, appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act for consuming alcohol while on duty and neglecting their duty during a surveillance operation.

The only issue on appeal was whether they were on duty at the relevant time.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that clear and convincing evidence, including sign-in sheets, authorization for a double shift, and the use of police vehicles, established they were on duty.

The appeal against the penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time for each offence was also dismissed, as the penalty appropriately balanced the officer's unblemished record with the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for insubordination and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal, arising from her failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and her subsequent conduct during the investigation.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding that the order to answer questions orally was lawful and that the finding of deceit was supported by evidence of her actual knowledge of the events.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the dismissal to a demotion to second class constable for one year, citing her unblemished record and the principle of progressive discipline.

The York Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the basis that his notice of appeal was filed outside the 30-day statutory limitation period under s. 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission found that the appeal period commenced when the sentencing decision was served, not the earlier finding of guilt.

However, because the notice of appeal was served by facsimile on the final day of the limitation period, it was deemed received the following day under s. 77(3) of the Act.

The Commission held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit and granted the motion to dismiss the appeal.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory limitation period under subsection 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant's notice of appeal was served via facsimile on the final day of the limitation period, which under subsection 77(3) deemed it received the following day, making it one day late.

The Commission held that the 30-day appeal period commences after the sentencing decision is served, not the finding of guilt.

However, because the notice was deemed served one day late, and the Commission lacks inherent jurisdiction to extend statutory time limits, the motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and a penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours.

He had refused to answer questions regarding an investigation into the death of an infant, arguing that he was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and had a right to remain silent under the Charter.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the order to answer questions was lawful and that the Charter did not provide a lawful excuse to disobey the order, as any compelled statements could not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police appealed a disciplinary sanction imposed on a constable by a delegated Hearing Officer.

The respondent constable brought a preliminary motion arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Commissioner is not a 'complainant' under section 70 of the Police Services Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that interpreting the Commissioner as a complainant would lead to absurdities within the statutory scheme.

The motion to strike the appeal was granted.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for insubordination and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on the appeal.

The appellant sought to introduce affidavits and statements to prove he was under criminal investigation at the time he refused to answer questions, arguing this engaged his Charter rights.

Applying the Palmer test, the Commission found the proposed evidence was not available by due diligence at trial, was relevant to the Charter issue, was credible, and could reasonably have affected the result.

The motion was granted, and the fresh evidence was admitted subject to the respondent's right to cross-examine the deponents.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing disciplinary charges against several police officers.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion arguing that the applicant failed to serve them with proper notice of the appeal within the 30-day period required by the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The Commission found that the applicant's attempts to serve the officers by faxing the Chief of Police and leaving copies with a student at police headquarters did not constitute proper service.

As the applicant had sufficient information to effect proper service but failed to do so, the preliminary motion was granted and the application for leave to appeal was denied.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed three findings of insubordination for refusing to shave his beard in violation of a police services board by-law and a standing order of the Chief of Police.

The appellant argued the policy was unreasonable and therefore not a lawful order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the board had the statutory authority to establish policies regarding personal appearance, making the order lawful.

The Commission distinguished between labour relations matters and police discipline, concluding that the appellant's refusal to obey the lawful order constituted insubordination.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct (unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority) arising from an incident where he entered a private residence without a warrant and used force against the homeowner during a missing person investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the officer had no legal authority to enter the main residence after permission was revoked, and that there were no exigent circumstances justifying the entry or the use of force.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings on credibility and the application of the law.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against several police officers.

The respondents raised preliminary motions arguing that the chief of police's prosecutor was not a proper party to the appeal and that the appeal was filed outside the 30-day limitation period under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that the prosecutor is a proper party to the appeal.

The Commission also found that the appeal was filed within the 30-day period, as the time began to run when the applicant received written notice of the decision, not when he was verbally informed.

The preliminary motions to dismiss were denied.