Jacqueline Castel

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering her to resign or face termination after she pleaded guilty to four counts of misconduct, including deceit and neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved forging supervisors' signatures on reports, lying about working penalty hours, and failing to attend court.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in failing to find a nexus between her misconduct and her psychological disabilities, which included the impact of a miscarriage and the deaths of loved ones.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded there was no connection between the disabilities and the deceitful conduct, and properly applied the dispositional factors in determining that the appellant's usefulness as a police officer had been annulled.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for insubordination and neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

After the appeal was heard but before a decision was rendered, the appellant retired from the police service.

The Commission held that pursuant to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act, it lost jurisdiction over the matter once the appellant ceased to be a police officer.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from his failure to properly supervise a sudden death investigation, including failing to secure the scene, preserve evidence, and call specialized units after concluding prematurely that a motor vehicle was not involved.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Hearing Officer's factual findings and confirmed the conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence that the appellant's conduct crossed the line from a performance issue to misconduct.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for speaking at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization while off-duty, contrary to a direct order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under section 49(1) of the Police Services Act.

However, the Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction, ruling that the Hearing Officer erred by applying a subjective test rather than an objective reasonable person test to assess whether the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct.

The conviction arose from a sarcastic internal report the appellant wrote criticizing an order to conduct a missing person investigation, which he believed was a conflict of interest.

The Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Hearing Officer.

However, the Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct was unreasonable, as the appellant's conduct should have been treated as a performance issue rather than misconduct.

The conviction was revoked.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination arising from an incident where he allegedly attended a police disciplinary hearing under the influence of alcohol and refused an order to take a breath test.

The Hearing Officer's decision was premised on the finding that the appellant was on duty at the time.

The Commission found that the evidence did not reasonably support the conclusion that the appellant was on duty, as he had been granted an 'Association day' and was not explicitly ordered to return to work.

The Commission revoked the findings of guilt and ordered a new hearing.

Two police officers appealed their disciplinary convictions for Unlawful or Unnecessary Arrest and Discreditable Conduct, as well as the penalties imposed.

The officers had entered a residence without a warrant to investigate a noise complaint and arrested a youth who was recording them.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the unlawful arrest convictions, finding no hot pursuit justified the warrantless entry.

However, the Commission overturned the discreditable conduct conviction against one officer, finding the hearing officer failed to apply the objective reasonable person test to her use of mild profanity.

The penalties were varied from forfeiture of hours to reprimands and training to align with similar cases.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination, discreditable conduct, and deceit, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from the appellant's failure to assist two members of the public with criminal record checks outside regular business hours, contrary to orders, and his subsequent deceit to a supervisor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the findings of misconduct, finding the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments reasonable.

However, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the appellant twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and failing to apply the Kienapple principle.

The penalty was varied from an 18-month demotion to a forfeiture of 40 hours.

The appellant, an unrepresented public complainant, appealed the dismissal of disciplinary charges against a police officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer breached natural justice and procedural fairness by failing to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission agreed, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to provide the minimum level of assistance required for an unrepresented party, such as explaining the process, confirming his understanding, and inviting him to call or cross-examine witnesses.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing was ordered.

The Amherstburg Police Service brought a motion to file three affidavits responding to allegations of breaches of natural justice and procedural fairness in a disciplinary proceeding.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged breaches could be determined by reference to the record, making the affidavit evidence unnecessary and unfair.

The Commission also noted that it is improper for a Hearing Officer to swear an affidavit explaining their conduct after the fact.

The appellant in a police discipline appeal brought a motion to introduce an affidavit alleging prosecutorial incompetence and breaches of natural justice during the hearing.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the affidavit did not qualify as fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

Applying the Keeprite test, the Commission held that affidavit evidence to supplement the record is only admissible in rare circumstances where the alleged breach cannot be proven by reference to the record.

Because the appellant's allegations could be ascertained from the hearing transcripts, the affidavit was inadmissible.

Three police officers appealed the penalty of dismissal (or order to resign) imposed by a Hearing Officer after they pled guilty to multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, discreditable conduct, and insubordination.

The misconduct primarily involved their participation in a BBM group where they shared degrading and discriminatory photographs and comments about members of the public and other officers, as well as failing to report another officer's criminal activities.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding that the Hearing Officer did not misapprehend expert psychiatric evidence regarding group dynamics, properly weighed mitigating factors such as rehabilitation and guilty pleas against the egregious nature of the misconduct, and correctly applied the legal test for dismissal.

The Commission upheld the conclusion that the officers' actions irreparably damaged the reputation of the police service, justifying the ultimate penalty of dismissal.

The moving party brought a motion to strike portions of a Notice of Appeal and factums filed by a public complainant and the intervener.

The impugned portions alleged breaches of natural justice and prosecutorial incompetence during a police disciplinary hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked the statutory authority under the Police Services Act or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to strike pleadings that are clearly connected to the central issue of whether misconduct was proved on clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant police officer was convicted of insubordination for refusing to comply with an order from a superior to change the finding of fault on a motor vehicle collision report.

The officer honestly believed his original conclusion was accurate.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the order was unlawful because it would have forced the officer to sign a document he believed to be inaccurate, which is tantamount to deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was substituted with an acquittal.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination under the Code of Conduct.

The officer had refused an order from a superior to change his investigative conclusion on a Motor Vehicle Collision Report, maintaining his honest belief that a civilian driver, rather than a fellow officer, was at fault.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the order was unlawful because it would have forced the officer to sign a document he believed to be inaccurate, which is tantamount to deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The conviction was substituted with an acquittal.

Constable Mulholland appealed the penalty imposed by a Hearing Officer for multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, insubordination, discreditable conduct, and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a demotion with conditions, which the appellant argued was harsh and excessive given his diagnoses of PTSD and substance abuse.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the penalty factors, including the seriousness of the multiple acts of misconduct and the mitigating medical evidence, and that the penalty did not violate the duty to accommodate.

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 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 appellant police officer sought to introduce new medical evidence and internal correspondence regarding his post-disposition work performance on his appeal of a disciplinary demotion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and dismissed the motion.

The Commission found that the medical evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the penalty hearing, and that post-disposition work performance was not relevant where the penalty imposed was demotion rather than dismissal.

The Toronto Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the basis that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had resigned and was no longer a police officer.

The appellant had been found guilty of misconduct and resigned on the day the penalty decision was to be delivered, just before it was read.

The Commission held that under the Police Services Act, it only has jurisdiction over current police officers.

Because the appellant had resigned, the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear his appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.