Joe Mavrinac

The appellant police officer appealed a nine-day penalty imposed following a guilty plea to insubordination for improperly accessing CPIC information and releasing it to his father.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred procedurally by accepting unsworn victim impact statements and going beyond the agreed statement of fact.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty was within the appropriate range and the Hearing Officer had authority under section 15 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act to receive the statements, though noting a preference for sworn evidence in quasi-judicial hearings.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of nine days' forfeiture of pay imposed after he pleaded guilty to insubordination under the Police Services Act for improperly accessing CPIC information and releasing it to his father.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred procedurally by going beyond the agreed statement of facts and by receiving unsworn victim impact statements from the complainant and his wife.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was within the appropriate range and that the Hearing Officer had the authority under section 15 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act to receive the statements, although the Commission noted that evidence should normally be taken under oath.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of nine days (72 hours) imposed following a guilty plea to one count of insubordination under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from a public complaint that the officer improperly accessed CPIC information and released it to his father.

The appellant argued that the hearing officer erred procedurally by going beyond the agreed statement of facts and accepting unsworn victim impact statements from the complainant.

The Commission found no error in principle and held that the hearing officer had authority under section 15 of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act to receive the statements.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and corrupt practice relating to the theft of $650 in evidence money and an assault on a civilian.

The civilian had secretly recorded a conversation in which the appellant admitted to taking the money.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer had a clear and convincing evidentiary foundation to believe the civilian's testimony and the recorded admissions over the appellant's evasive explanations.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and corrupt practice under the Police Services Act for taking $650 in evidence money and assaulting a civilian.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility, particularly regarding a secretly recorded conversation where the appellant admitted to taking the money.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer had a clear and convincing evidentiary foundation to believe the civilian witness over the appellant, whose explanations for the recorded admissions were deemed incredible.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of discreditable conduct and corrupt practice relating to the theft of $650 in seized funds and an assault.

The Hearing Officer had relied heavily on a secretly recorded conversation in which the appellant admitted to taking the money, rejecting the appellant's explanations as evasive and incredible.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer had a clear and convincing evidentiary foundation for his credibility assessments and findings of guilt.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The conviction arose after the appellant crashed his police cruiser and subsequently provided a false statement to the investigating officer, claiming he had left his roof lights on from an earlier traffic stop.

At the hearing, the appellant called a psychologist to suggest his memory was impaired, but the Hearings Officer rejected this evidence and found the appellant was deceitful.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearings Officer's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the psychological theory of memory contamination was unfounded.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for tampering with evidence and failing to lay appropriate charges.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for deceit under the Police Services Act.

The conviction arose from a false statement he gave to an investigating officer after he crashed his police cruiser into a bridge.

The appellant claimed he had left his roof lights on from an earlier traffic stop, but civilian witnesses confirmed he activated them just before the crash.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearings Officer erred by discounting expert psychological evidence suggesting memory impairment.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was beyond the expert's expertise and unsupported by the facts.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for failing to properly investigate the collision and tampering with evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for deceit under the Police Services Act after providing a false statement regarding a single-vehicle collision involving his police cruiser.

The appellant argued the Hearings Officer erred in discounting expert psychological evidence suggesting his memory was impaired.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the expert's theory of memory contamination unsupported by the evidence and upholding the Hearings Officer's conclusion that the appellant was deceitful.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for tampering with evidence and failing to lay appropriate charges.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from first class to second class constable for six months, imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of misconduct for forging his wife's signature on loan documents.

He had received an absolute discharge in criminal court.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer made no manifest errors in principle and that the penalty was well within the appropriate range given the two deliberate acts of forgery.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from first class to second class constable for six months, imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct stemmed from forging his wife's signature on loan documents, for which he received an absolute discharge in criminal court.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer made no manifest error in principle and that the penalty was well within the appropriate range given the deliberate nature of the two acts of forgery.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from first class constable to second class constable for six months, imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of misconduct for forging his wife's signature on loan documents.

He had previously received an absolute discharge for the related criminal offences.

The Commission found that the hearing officer did not commit a manifest error in principle and that the penalty was not clearly or manifestly excessive, given the two deliberate acts of forgery.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer was convicted of two counts of insubordination for failing to attend court and allowing secondary employment to interfere with his duties.

The officer had a scheduling conflict and submitted a leave form, which was approved by his supervisors despite his scheduled court appearance.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services allowed the appeal, finding that the officer held an honest belief that he was excused from attending court, which constituted a lawful excuse.

The convictions were overturned.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction on two counts of insubordination for failing to attend court and violating a condition of secondary employment.

The officer had a scheduling conflict and submitted a leave form, which was approved by his supervisors despite his receipt of a court notice.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the officer had an honest belief that he was excused from attending court, which constituted a lawful excuse.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, as the employer had officially induced the officer's belief by approving the leave.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for insubordination arising from his failure to attend court on a scheduled date.

The officer had a scheduling conflict and submitted a leave form, which was approved by his supervisors despite his receipt of a court notice.

The Commission found that the officer held an honest belief that he was excused from attending court, as his leave was officially approved and he was told by the Crown that he was not needed.

The Commission concluded that the hearing officer erred in finding the officer insubordinate, as his honest mistake provided a lawful excuse.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were overturned.

The Appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of discreditable conduct (attempting to dissuade a fellow officer from laying criminal charges and assaulting that officer).

The Commission admitted fresh evidence on appeal but found it would not have affected the outcome of the original hearing.

Applying the standard of review that a Hearing Officer's findings of fact and credibility should only be overturned if void of evidentiary foundation, the Commission upheld the convictions and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of discreditable conduct: attempting to dissuade a fellow officer from laying criminal charges and assaulting that same officer.

The Commission admitted fresh evidence on appeal but found it would not have affected the outcome of the hearing.

Applying the standard of review, the Commission held that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and credibility assessments were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of discreditable conduct: attempting to dissuade a fellow officer from laying criminal charges and assaulting that same officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission admitted fresh evidence on appeal but found it would not have affected the outcome of the original hearing.

Applying the standard of review, the Commission held that the Hearing Officer's findings on credibility and guilt were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld.

The appellant, a police superintendent, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and the resulting penalty of a reprimand.

The charge arose from allegations that he failed to initiate an investigation after being informed by the widow of a murdered officer that two other officers were improperly absent from duty on the night of the murder.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision, which relied on the widow's testimony over the appellant's, was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal against both the conviction and the penalty was dismissed.

The appellant, a senior police officer, appealed a conviction and reprimand for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant allegedly failed to investigate information provided by the widow of a murdered officer, who claimed that two officers were improperly absent from their duties on the night of the murder.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision to prefer the widow's evidence over the appellant's was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal against both the conviction and the penalty was dismissed.