Jean Margery Beauprie

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct for taking merchandise from a store without paying.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of forfeiture of 20 days' vacation leave.

The appellant argued that psychiatric evidence showed he was under severe stress and did not intend to take the items.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the psychiatric evidence provided an explanation but not a lawful excuse for the conduct.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting that the adjudicator had properly considered the appellant's unblemished record and the psychiatric evidence as mitigating factors.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had arrested a civilian for mischief after the civilian refused to provide identification while rummaging through garbage.

The Commission upheld the finding that the arrest was unlawful, as the officer admitted he made the arrest solely to obtain identification and knew there was no evidence to support a mischief charge.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's prior disciplinary record, his admission that he would repeat his actions, and his poor attitude toward the public and discipline.

Constable Burgess appealed his convictions and dismissal for deceit and unnecessary exercise of authority under the Code of Discipline.

The charges arose from an incident where he used force to lift an uncooperative prisoner from a chair, resulting in an accidental injury, and subsequently filed an inaccurate Occurrence Report.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission admitted fresh evidence and quashed both convictions.

The Commission found the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and that, while the Occurrence Report was incomplete and inaccurate, there was no evidence of an intent to mislead or deceive.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of two days' leave for allegedly losing a portable radio due to negligence.

The appellant argued that the charge sheet was a nullity because it failed to properly identify the offence and the particulars did not allege any improper act or omission, contrary to Section 5(8)(b) of Regulation 791.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission agreed, finding the charge sheet deficient and the charge a nullity.

The previous proceedings were quashed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of three days off for failing to report for duty.

The Commission found that the original hearing was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Chief of Police presided while the Deputy Chief, who gave the order in question, acted as prosecuting officer.

The Commission also found that the local board's appeal process violated natural justice by proceeding without the appellant and before he received the hearing transcript.

The Commission quashed both decisions and elected to decide the matter itself.

It held that while the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the appellant's leave were unfair, they did not constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to report for duty.

The conviction was upheld, but the penalty was reduced to forfeiture of one day off.

Two off-duty police officers appealed their convictions and penalties under the Police Act for arresting a taxi driver for impaired driving without sufficient cause.

The officers claimed the driver showed signs of impairment, but subsequent breath tests were negative and other officers found no evidence of impairment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Hearing Officer's credibility findings against the officers.

The Commission confirmed the penalties, noting it considered increasing them but refrained because Force counsel had not sought an increase.

Two off-duty police officers appealed their convictions and penalties (two and three days leave) for arresting a taxi driver for impaired driving without sufficient cause.

The officers claimed the driver showed signs of impairment, but on-duty officers found no evidence of impairment and a breath test was negative.

The hearing officer resolved the credibility issue against the officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the convictions, finding ample evidence to support the credibility finding.

The Commission confirmed the penalties, noting they considered increasing them but refrained because Force counsel did not seek an increase.