Georges Bedard

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of dismissal (seven days to resign or be terminated) imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of Insubordination, two counts of Discreditable Conduct, and one count of Breach of Confidence.

The misconduct involved unauthorized access to police databases to obtain confidential information about an acquaintance's criminal investigation and sharing that information with a civilian.

The officer was also convicted criminally of Breach of Trust by a Public Official.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision on penalty was reasonable, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and was proportional to the egregious nature of the misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering him to resign or be dismissed after being found guilty of Discreditable Conduct, Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority, and Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Force.

The officer had pursued and forcefully arrested a mentally ill pedestrian without lawful authority and grounded him multiple times.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's penalty decision was reasonable.

The Hearing Officer appropriately considered the officer's prior disciplinary record, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the fact that the officer continued to engage in similar misconduct despite receiving extensive therapy for his mental health issues.

The Waterloo Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a penalty decision on the basis that the notice of appeal was filed outside the 30-day statutory time limit.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing despite being notified.

The Commission found that the faxed notice of appeal was deemed received on the 31st day, and held that it has no jurisdiction to extend or waive the statutory time periods under the Police Services Act.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of a loss of 5 days' pay.

The charge arose from an off-duty email sent to his ex-wife regarding child access, which referenced a previous disciplinary penalty.

The Hearing Officer found the email threatening and likely to bring discredit upon the police service.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons or an evidentiary basis for concluding the email was threatening or would likely bring discredit to the police service if made public.

The appeal was allowed.

The moving party, a public complainant, sought leave to appeal a penalty decision that suspended a police officer for one day without pay for making an unlawful arrest during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The moving party argued that the arrest breached his Charter rights and that the appropriate penalty was of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the test for leave to appeal and found that, given the circumstances of the unlawful arrest and detention, the issue of the appropriate penalty was of significant importance.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that found him guilty of unsatisfactory work performance and ordered his resignation or dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and ordered his reinstatement.

The Commission found that the Ottawa Police Service failed to strictly comply with its own performance review policies and the mandatory pre-conditions set out in section 29(3) of O. Reg. 268/10 before initiating the chief's complaint.

The hearing officer committed manifest errors of law by finding that substantial compliance was sufficient and that he had discretion to interpret the established procedures, as well as errors of fact by ignoring material evidence favourable to the appellant.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay for conducting unauthorized CPIC searches on an individual involved in a domestic relationship with the officer's friend.

The officer argued that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to order the disclosure of a 2007 investigation file regarding similar CPIC searches for which the officer was cleared.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the strict criminal disclosure standards from Stinchcombe do not apply to administrative police discipline hearings, and that the disclosure provided was sufficient to allow the officer to know the case to be met.