John Kromkamp

The appellant appealed the dismissal of misconduct charges against four Toronto Police Service officers involved in his arrest during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had found the officers' use of distractionary strikes justified due to the appellant's active resistance.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the decision on a reasonableness standard and found no error in the Hearing Officer's conclusions, confirming the dismissal of the charges.

The Commission noted concerns about qualifying a TPS training officer as an expert witness but held it did not affect the outcome as it was not raised as a ground of appeal.

The appellant appealed the penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay imposed on the respondent police officer for discreditable conduct.

The respondent had previously been convicted of assault with a weapon for his actions during the appellant's arrest at the G20 Summit.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing aggravating and mitigating factors, and the intervener argued the Hearing Officer improperly allowed a collateral attack on the criminal conviction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's penalty decision was reasonable and did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack.

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.

Five police officers appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act arising from the arrest of a public complainant during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's decision, which relied heavily on video evidence.

The Commission confirmed the conviction of one officer for unlawful arrest, finding no good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

However, the Commission revoked the remaining convictions for unlawful arrest, unnecessary force, and discreditable conduct, concluding that the Hearing Officer failed to provide sufficient reasons or analysis regarding the assisting officers' roles, the use of force, and the elements of discreditable conduct.

The appellant appealed the decision of a Hearing Officer dismissing charges of neglect of duty against three Ottawa Police Service officers.

The charges arose from the officers' investigation of a physical altercation involving the appellant, specifically regarding the failure to photograph the appellant's injuries, failure to review a seized camera, and failure to complete a return to justice form.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law, did not exhibit bias, provided adequate assistance to the unrepresented appellant, and properly assessed the evidence.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's claim of prosecutorial incompetence.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for neglect of duty and unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority arising from his use of force against an intoxicated, handcuffed individual in a police cruiser.

The Commission revoked the finding of guilt for unlawful exercise of authority, finding the Hearing Officer applied the wrong standard of proof, improperly relied on personal experience to determine the cause of the individual's injury, and made irreconcilably inconsistent findings of credibility.

However, the Commission confirmed the finding of guilt for neglect of duty, upholding the determination that the appellant deliberately misled his supervisor and failed to properly document the use of force in his notes and reports.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The Hearing Officer imposed a 21-month demotion to Second Class Constable.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by overemphasizing aggravating factors, such as policy memoranda, and failing to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's low breathalyzer readings, lack of impairment indicia, and exemplary work record.

The Commission allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty to a 12-month demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit for falsifying Daily Activity Reporting (DAR) records.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in finding an intent to deceive, misapprehended the evidence, and improperly admitted statements he made during a compelled interview under section 83(6) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably inferred an intent to deceive from the detailed falsifications and the potential benefit to the appellant.

The Commission also held that section 83(6) protects an officer from being compelled to testify at a hearing, but does not preclude the admission of statements made during a disciplinary investigation.

The appellant police officer was involved in an off-duty domestic altercation and subsequently ordered by a superior to answer questions during a Professional Standards Bureau investigation.

The appellant refused to answer, arguing there was no legal authority to compel statements regarding off-duty conduct, and was found guilty of insubordination.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirmed the finding of guilt, holding that the order was lawful and that police officers can be compelled to answer questions regarding off-duty conduct that may amount to misconduct.

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 findings of misconduct and penalties arising from the unlawful arrest of a civilian during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct findings, concluding the Hearing Officer reasonably assessed credibility and correctly found the officers lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest and used excessive force.

However, the Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating one officer's untruthful testimony as an aggravating factor for penalty.

The penalty for the arresting officer was reduced from a two-month to a one-month demotion.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for allegedly using unnecessary force during the G20 summit.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the Notice of Hearing served on the officer differed from the draft notice approved by the Police Services Board in a delay application under section 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's role under section 83(17) is limited to determining whether the delay in serving the notice was reasonable, not approving the specific wording of the charge.

The Commission revoked the stay and remitted the matter for a re-hearing.

The appellant appealed a review decision upholding an inspection order that required him to remove excessive combustible materials (hoarding) from his home.

The appellant argued the inspection violated Charter values due to alleged harassment, that hoarding is not a fire safety issue, and that he had since complied with the order.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of harassment, that hoarding poses a significant fire safety risk to occupants and first responders, and that subsequent compliance does not invalidate the original order.