Hyacinthe Miller

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The officer had arrested a motorist for breach of the peace during a traffic stop after the motorist became agitated and argumentative.

The Hearing Officer found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest, as the motorist's behaviour did not pose an imminent risk of harm or breach of the peace.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review, upheld the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and credibility, and affirmed the penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours of work.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after she pled guilty to two counts of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct stemmed from two off-duty incidents of impaired driving for which she was criminally convicted.

The appellant argued that her misconduct was driven by her alcohol addiction and anxiety disorder, which were now in sustained remission, and sought reinstatement with a demotion.

The Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the repeated and serious nature of the misconduct, combined with her prior disciplinary record, outweighed the mitigating factors of her rehabilitation efforts.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

After the appeal hearing but before the Commission rendered its decision, the appellant retired from the police service.

The Commission determined that under the Police Services Act, its jurisdiction over disciplinary matters ends once an individual ceases to be a police officer.

Consequently, the Commission found it lacked jurisdiction to continue the appeal and issue a decision on the merits.

The appellant, a police officer with 19 years of service, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to seven counts of insubordination and one count of neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved over 100 unauthorized CPIC checks, inappropriate relationships with women known to have criminal records, and negligent administration of police duties.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider mitigating factors, including his personal circumstances and depression.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and correctly concluded that the appellant's protracted pattern of serious misconduct warranted dismissal.

The appellant, a public complainant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for alleged unauthorized database searches.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the appellant's initial e-mail complaint was unsigned, failing to meet the mandatory requirements of s. 57(2) of the Police Services Act, and that the officer had already been informally disciplined for the conduct.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by considering expunged disciplinary records and raised new grounds including issue estoppel.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded the complaint was invalid for lack of a signature and properly considered oral testimony regarding the prior discipline.

The Commission also held it lacked jurisdiction to hear new grounds of appeal filed beyond the statutory time limit.

The appellant, a detective constable, appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination after leaving his loaded service firearm unsecured on his desk.

He argued that he did not receive proper notice of the chief's complaint under the Police Services Act and sought to introduce new evidence regarding a past misconduct conviction of the main witness.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission denied the motion to introduce new evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, concluding that the hearing officer reasonably found that proper notice was given during the informal resolution process and that the evidence clearly supported the finding that the appellant failed to secure his firearm.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved forcing entry into a neighbour's home while intoxicated to confront his son, and subsequently actively resisting arrest by fellow officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's decision reasonable given the appellant's history of progressive discipline for alcohol-related misconduct, failure to rehabilitate despite multiple opportunities, and the serious damage to the reputation of the police service.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after failing to properly report a minor collision between his cruiser and a fire truck, and initially misleading his supervisor about the cause of the damage.

The hearing officer imposed a penalty of 40 hours forfeiture.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the hearing officer failed to provide sufficient reasons for the penalty and did not adequately weigh mitigating factors, including the officer's 23-year unblemished record and guilty plea.

The appeal was allowed and the penalty reduced to 20 hours forfeiture.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of immediate dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after being found guilty of multiple counts of misconduct, including neglect of duty, breach of confidence, and insubordination.

The misconduct involved a prolonged pattern of unauthorized and unsafe interactions with a confidential informant, including disclosing sensitive operational information.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider character evidence and his potential for rehabilitation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and the conclusion that the appellant's usefulness as a police officer had been completely annulled were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant, a 25-year veteran police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal or resignation imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The disciplinary charge stemmed from an off-duty incident where the appellant, after failing a use of force re-qualification, consumed alcohol, destroyed property in his home, and violently resisted arrest by assaulting and threatening responding officers.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the evidence or the application of the relevant penalty factors, and concluded that the appellant's egregious conduct destroyed his usefulness to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for insubordination and breach of confidence, as well as the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal.

The charges arose from an unauthorized CPIC check on a surveillance vehicle involved in a joint forces investigation, and the subsequent disclosure of that information to an undercover officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the credibility assessments and factual determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was also upheld given the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's lack of remorse, and the paramount importance of protecting the CPIC database.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for deceit and the penalty of demotion imposed for three counts of misconduct, including unauthorized access to police databases (CPIC and RMS) and deceit during a professional standards interview.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the officer deliberately lied to investigators to distance himself from an individual with a criminal record.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of demotion from First-Class to Third-Class Constable for one year, finding it consistent with the seriousness of the multiple breaches and the officer's deceit.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from sergeant to first-class constable for a minimum of one year, imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of discreditable conduct for misappropriating funds from a unit bank account.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence regarding his repayment efforts, failed to consider his medical and personal circumstances, and imposed a disproportionate penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed these grounds, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable and the penalty within the acceptable range.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal in part to vary the wording of the penalty, finding that making reinstatement conditional on a Unit Commander's recommendation was problematic and lacked clear standards.

The penalty was varied to allow the appellant to participate in the normal promotional process after the one-year demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of a one-year demotion from first-class to second-class constable, imposed after he was found guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved falsely recording an authorized missed lunch break and repeatedly refusing to surrender a personal journal referenced in his memo book.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably considered the officer's prior disciplinary history, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the principles of progressive discipline in determining the penalty.

The appellant police officers appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from a warrantless entry into a tenant's private residence while responding to a landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid rent.

The appellants argued the Hearing Officer failed to consider their good faith and intentions.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably applied an objective test based on the reasonable expectations of the public, and correctly concluded that the officers' unauthorized entry constituted a trespass that would bring discredit to the police service.

Three police officers appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty and discreditable conduct arising from their entry into an apartment without a Feeney endorsement or valid consent.

The officers argued the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to admit fresh evidence suggesting the public complainant had set them up, and by misinterpreting police service policies regarding consent.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer had no statutory authority to reopen the hearing to admit fresh evidence after rendering a finding of guilt.

The Commission also held that the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the person who permitted entry was not an 'occupant' capable of giving lawful consent was reasonable.

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.

Constable Pigeau appealed a finding of guilt for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and the resulting penalty of a loss of 16 hours off and directed training.

The misconduct arose from an incident where the officer made physical contact with a pedestrian he suspected of public intoxication, leading to an altercation and an unnecessary arrest.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upheld the finding of misconduct, applying a reasonableness standard of review and finding that the officer lacked legal justification for the physical contact.

However, the Commission found the penalty to be harsh and excessive, varying it to a reprimand and a requirement to attend refresher training on powers of arrest.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding and penalty but failed to serve the complainant, who was a party to the original proceedings, with the Notice of Appeal or related materials.

The Commission held that the complainant is a party to the appeal and must be served.

To protect the complainant's rights without unduly prejudicing the appellant for counsel's oversight, the Commission ordered the appellant and respondent police service to serve the complainant within 21 days and adjourned the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty and unlawful exercise of authority, as well as the penalty of a one-year demotion.

The charges arose from an incident where the appellant allegedly kicked and slapped a handcuffed suspect and failed to submit a use of force report or note the injuries.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and findings of fact were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting the serious nature of the misconduct and the appellant's supervisory role.