Jacqueline Castel

The moving party, a police officer found guilty of misconduct and ordered dismissed, brought a motion to extend the time to perfect his disciplinary appeal to the Commission until the conclusion of parallel criminal proceedings arising from the same incident.

The officer had been convicted of sexual assault but had not yet been sentenced and intended to appeal.

The Commission granted the motion on consent, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's direction in Toronto v. C.U.P.E. Local 79 that lower tribunals should await the outcome of criminal proceedings dealing with the same facts to avoid collateral attacks and inconsistent verdicts.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and a penalty of forfeiture of 12 days' pay for using unnecessary force during an arrest.

The officer argued that the hearing officer applied the wrong standard of proof, misapprehended the evidence regarding knee strikes, and erred in assessing the necessity of the force used.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the balance of probabilities standard, reasonably concluded that the knee strikes constituted unnecessary force, and imposed a reasonable penalty consistent with similar cases.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to rule on the appellant's motion for a stay of proceedings based on abuse of process.

The Commission determined that the deliberate merging of the internal disciplinary investigation and the criminal investigation, which used regulatory powers to compel evidence for the criminal probe, constituted an egregious abuse of process and a violation of the appellant's Charter rights.

The Commission set aside the Hearing Officer's decision and ordered a stay of proceedings on all counts.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his conviction for insubordination arising from an off-duty traffic stop.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in her definition of a 'traffic stop' and in her assessment of the evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's definition of a traffic stop was reasonable and that her conclusion that the appellant's actions constituted an off-duty traffic stop in violation of police policy was supported by the evidence.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of dismissal arising from a 2004 traffic stop and drug seizure.

The Hearing Officer had found the Appellant guilty of neglect of duty based largely on hearsay utterances from a disgraced former officer and circumstantial evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer committed numerous errors of law, including admitting highly unreliable and prejudicial hearsay evidence, shifting the burden of proof onto the Appellant, making irreconcilable findings of fact, and improperly using his own police experience to fill gaps in the evidentiary record.

The finding of misconduct was quashed, rendering the penalty moot.

Two police officers appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest without good and sufficient cause.

The officers had arrested a driver leaving a laneway near a suspected drug dealer's residence without observing any drug transaction or confirming the driver's identity.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's reasons were adequate in the administrative law context and that the officers lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest.

The appellant, a public complainant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding two respondent police officers not guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The appellant alleged prosecutorial misconduct, Hearing Officer bias, and errors in findings of fact and credibility.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, noting the appellant waived his right to allege bias by not raising it during the hearing, and concluding the Hearing Officer's factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.