John P. MacBeth

The appellant police officer was convicted of narcotics offences and subsequently dismissed from the police force.

He appealed his dismissal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing that the disciplinary hearing should have been adjourned pending his criminal appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and that suspension rather than termination was the appropriate penalty in the interim.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation to stay Police Act proceedings pending a criminal appeal, and holding that the police force should not be prejudiced by having to maintain a convicted officer on its complement.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed his conviction and penalty of forfeiture of 10 days off for being unfit for duty through drinking intoxicating liquor.

The appellant argued that the presiding officer failed to consider evidence of his innocence and improperly assessed evidence of fitness for duty, claiming the odour of alcohol was from beer spilled on his uniform.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence of alcohol consumption, including bloodshot eyes and an agitated manner, and confirmed the conviction and penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for Corrupt Practice and a penalty of forfeiture of three days off, arising from his use of CPIC to run background checks on prospective employees for his private business.

On appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, both parties agreed that an offence had been committed but requested that the charge be substituted to avoid the stigma of a 'corrupt practice' conviction.

The Commission consented to the agreement, quashed the Corrupt Practice conviction, substituted a finding of guilt for Insubordination, and maintained the penalty of forfeiture of three days off.

The appellant, a police constable with over ten years of service, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed for neglect of duty, deceit, and insubordination.

The appellant had left his designated patrol area, made false entries in his notebook, and failed to submit a comprehensive report as ordered.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, finding that dismissal was too severe given the appellant's unblemished record and in comparison with penalties applied by other forces.

The penalty was reduced to a reduction in grade from first to second class constable for twelve months.

The appellant police officer was convicted of discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary retail business without the consent of the Commissioner, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the business was a commercial venture extending beyond a hobby, and that the Commissioner reasonably exercised his discretion to deny consent.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's argument that the prohibition violated his rights under sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter, concluding that the limitation was reasonable and not discriminatory.

The appellant police officer was convicted of insubordination for disobeying an order to cease physical involvement in a secondary business (an outfitters store).

On appeal, the officer argued that he was merely counselled, not ordered, and challenged the authority to give such an order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the written memorandum and subsequent telephone conversation constituted a clear order to comply with the law regarding secondary employment.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of a reprimand was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of admonition for neglect of duty after failing to attend court.

He argued that he had a reasonable excuse because his daughter was seriously ill, and that his testimony was ultimately not required.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge was substantiated and that the penalty of admonition already reflected fair consideration of his reasons for failing to attend.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for driving under the influence of alcohol.

The appellant argued the penalty was excessive and failed to account for his alcoholism, rehabilitation efforts, and unblemished record.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the Force's support and counselling, the appellant's deliberate preparations for a drinking spree while en route to an alcohol clinic demonstrated a lack of intent to reform, justifying the severe penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty imposed following his guilty plea to a charge of discreditable conduct.

The officer had been involved in a fight while off-duty, was ejected from a building, and used abusive language towards two uniformed officers.

The Hearing Officer initially imposed a penalty of reduction in rank from first to second class constable for one year, which the Board of Commissioners of Police subsequently reduced to six months.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the mitigated penalty was not unreasonable and that it should not substitute its judgment for that of the Hearing Officer and Board where all relevant matters were fairly considered.

The appellants, two police constables, were convicted of neglect of duty for failing to attend court to assist with prosecutions.

They appealed the convictions, arguing that there was no written complaint or substitute document, which deprived the trial officer of jurisdiction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the objection to the lack of a written complaint was properly raised at the hearing de novo before the Board of Police Commissioners.

Following its own precedent, the Commission held that the absence of a written complaint was a fatal defect.

The appeals were allowed and the penalties were quashed.

Two police officers appealed their convictions for neglect of duty for failing to attend court.

The convictions were initially made by the Chief of Police and confirmed by the Board of Commissioners of Police.

On appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, the officers argued that there was no written complaint initiating the proceedings.

Following previous decisions, the Commission held that the lack of a written complaint is a fatal jurisdictional defect when raised at the proper time.

The appeals were allowed and the penalties quashed.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed the penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay following a conviction for discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from an altercation involving the appellant, two other off-duty officers, and a civilian, which later escalated to involve members of the local police force.

The Commission found no error in the trial officer's assessment of the evidence or the penalty imposed, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a police officer with 31 years of service, appealed his demotion from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant after being found unfit for duty due to alcohol consumption.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed his appeal against conviction, rejecting arguments under section 11(d) of the Charter.

However, considering his prior good service, his efforts at rehabilitation through Alcoholics Anonymous, and the financial penalties already suffered, the Commission varied the sentence.

The appellant was reinstated to the rank of Staff Sergeant without the requirement to rewrite qualifying examinations.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty of dismissal from the force for discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from an off-duty incident where the appellant, while intoxicated and bearing a black eye, attempted to cash a post-dated police cheque at a bank, used profanity when refused, and attempted to rip up the cheque.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found no error in the original hearing or the subsequent appeal to the Board of Commissioners of Police.

Given the incident and the appellant's long list of previous offences, the Commission affirmed the conviction and the penalty of dismissal.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for neglect of duty after failing to search two highly intoxicated prisoners before leaving them in a detachment cell under the supervision of a civilian guard.

During their 20-minute absence, one of the prisoners died, and a subsequent search revealed numerous items that should have been removed according to Force Procedures.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding that the officers did not act reasonably in postponing the search and that the failure to remove the articles was a clear breach of procedure.

The penalties of forfeiture of one weekly rest day were confirmed.

The appellants, a corporal and a constable, appealed their convictions for neglect of duty under the Police Act.

The charges arose from an incident where a civilian turned in a firearm for disposal, and the constable kept it for personal gain with the corporal's knowledge, in breach of Force procedures.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while there was no intent to deceive, intent is not an element of the offence.

The Commission confirmed the convictions and the penalties of forfeiture of pay and vacation days, dismissing the appeals.

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

He had been charged with willfully making a false statement to a superior officer regarding how he obtained radar readings for a speeding ticket.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer had implicitly accepted the appellant's evidence that he did not make the alleged false statement, and therefore could not have intended to commit the offence.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and admonishment for neglect of duty after a prisoner escaped from his custody.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the escape of a previously secured prisoner established a prima facie case of carelessness or neglect.

The appellant failed to rebut this presumption, and under the applicable regulations, officers engaged in guarding a prisoner share collective and individual responsibility.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed her conviction for neglect of duty after a prisoner escaped from her custody.

The appellant was one of three officers at the scene of an arrest where four individuals were taken into custody.

While the prisoners were outside, one escaped into the bush.

The appellant, who was closest to the escaping prisoner, failed to immediately pursue him or notify another officer who was leaving the scene.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the escape of a secured prisoner raised a reasonable assumption of carelessness, compounded by the appellant's failure to seek assistance.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and penalty of an admonishment were confirmed.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty for Neglect of Duty after failing to respond to a hold-up alarm while getting a haircut.

The appeal against conviction was abandoned on consent.

The Commission altered the penalty to a reduction in rank from First Class to Second Class Constable for a period of six months, with discretion for the Chief of Police to review the penalty after three months.