John P. MacBeth

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of nine days off for neglect of duty.

The officer had left his assigned post at a bank stake-out to go to a nearby store, during which time an attempted robbery occurred.

The Commission found that while the officer had a good record and was highly regarded, the penalty was appropriate given the potential consequences of his absence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and punishment for a minor charge of deceit under the Police Act.

The charge arose from an inaccurate entry in his daily journal regarding a roadside breath test.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that intent is a necessary ingredient for a charge of deceit, and the evidence established that the appellant did not intend to deceive anyone.

The appellant, a Corporal and drum-major of the OPP Pipes and Drums Band, appealed his conviction for deceit and subsequent reduction in rank to Constable.

He had initialled overtime forms for two band members, knowing the hours claimed did not reflect actual travel time but rather normal driving time.

The Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the appellant knowingly signed false statements in official documents and his altruistic motives were irrelevant to liability.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against sentence, varying the punishment from a reduction in rank to the forfeiture of 20 days of leave, noting his previously unimpeachable character and the lax enforcement of overtime rules.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed his conviction and penalty of reduction in rank to Police Constable, First Class for discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant took up residence with the mother of a victim in an incest case he was investigating, prior to the disposal of the criminal charges against the victim's father.

The appellant withdrew the appeal against conviction but argued the penalty was harsh because his relationship did not prejudice the criminal case or cause adverse public reaction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the likelihood of discredit must be viewed in advance by a reasonable person, and the penalty was commensurate with the likely discredit.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct under the Police Act.

The charge was based on his criminal conviction for corruptly attempting to obtain a valuable consideration.

The appellant argued that the Police Act proceedings were premature because his criminal conviction was under appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that a lower court's judgment has implications even while under appeal, and that Police Act proceedings need not await the exhaustion of all criminal appeal avenues.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty of two days' loss of leave for neglect of duty after he used a bumping manoeuvre to stop a fleeing vehicle, contrary to police force regulations.

The appellant argued the charge was a nullity due to missing wording and that he was not engaged in a 'high speed pursuit' as defined by the rules.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the omitted words were a defence rather than an essential element of the offence, and that the prohibition on bumping manoeuvres applied regardless of the speed of the pursuit.

The penalty was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of a two-rank demotion for discreditable conduct.

The conviction was based on a criminal conviction for obstructing justice, arising from the officer's attempt to dissuade other officers from investigating an illegal stag party he helped organize.

The appellant argued the Presiding Officer gave too much weight to the agreed statement of facts from the criminal trial and not enough to his own testimony.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Presiding Officer properly considered the evidence and that the serious nature of the misconduct warranted the penalty imposed.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct related to engaging in an outside occupation without the Chief of Police's consent.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine witnesses about other officers engaging in outside employment.

The Commission held that such evidence was relevant to potential defenses of implied consent, discriminatory treatment, or unfair procedure.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for Discreditable Conduct (based on a criminal conviction for theft under $200) and the penalty of compulsory resignation.

He argued the charge sheet was a nullity due to the involvement of a Disciplinary Committee, improper amendments, and pre-charge delay violating the Charter and the Provincial Offences Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, that the Provincial Offences Act limitation periods do not apply to Police Act disciplinary hearings, and that the penalty was justified given the premeditation and concealment involved in the theft.

The appellant, an OPP Corporal, appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of twenty days' leave.

The conviction arose from his taking possession of a seized shotgun from another officer, allegedly knowing or ought to have known it was seized in a criminal investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found sufficient evidence to support the trial officer's conclusions on both conviction and penalty, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police constable appealed the penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay imposed after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct.

Due to errors in the hearing transcript, counsel for both parties agreed to vary the penalty rather than remit the matter for a rehearing.

The Commission allowed the appeal on consent and varied the penalty to two and one-half days' loss of pay.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for major and minor insubordination.

The major charge related to transporting a prisoner and a complainant in the rear of a police cruiser without a screen, contrary to administrative procedure.

The minor charge related to eating a pear while in uniform in a public place.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal on both charges.

The Commission found the transportation procedure was unclear for the specific circumstances, making the officer's conduct reasonable.

Regarding the minor charge, while the strict regulation against eating in uniform remained valid, the Commission allowed the appeal because the regulation was outdated, modified by practice, and an improper penalty of a reprimand had been imposed.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for neglect of duty under the Police Act.

He argued that he was convicted of an offence for which he was not charged, specifically failing to report an incident, and that he had no duty to investigate further while on his day off.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to properly transfer responsibility for the investigation and had a duty to follow the matter more thoroughly despite being on his day off.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the termination of his employment by the Board of Commissioners of Police.

The termination was based on a physical disability—an inherited blood clotting disorder requiring anti-coagulant medication—which placed him at a high risk of fatal hemorrhage if he sustained trauma.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's preliminary motion to introduce new evidence, finding it was available prior to the initial hearing.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the termination, concluding that the medical evidence supported the finding that the appellant was incapable of performing his duties safely, and that the Board could not condone the assumption of such a high risk of harm.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his alleged association with a known criminal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the charge sheet was sufficiently particularized and the evidence established an association between the appellant and the individual, the prosecution failed to prove that the individual was a 'known criminal' at the relevant time.

The Commission held that the appellant's failure to run a CPIC check did not amount to wilful blindness.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and penalty were quashed.

The appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed his conviction and penalty for insubordination.

The charge was laid on the direct order of the Chief of Police without a written complaint being filed.

The Commission reviewed relevant case law and statutory requirements, concluding that a written complaint is a necessary prerequisite for disciplinary charges under the Police Act regulations.

As no written complaint existed, the appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed a conviction for insubordination arising from the accidental discharge of his service revolver in a police station washroom.

The charge alleged he neglected to carry out a lawful order to exercise the utmost care in handling firearms.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the incident being an accident and the officer having a physical handicap in his right hand, there was sufficient evidence that he failed to exercise the required utmost care.

The appellant, a police sergeant, was convicted of neglect of duty and reduced in rank to first class constable.

He filed a notice of appeal but failed to perfect it or order a transcript.

His counsel applied to be removed from the record due to a lack of instructions.

The Ontario Police Commission granted the respondent's application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, finding that the appellant had no intention of proceeding.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed a decision of the regional board of commissioners of police upholding his dismissal from the force.

The appellant argued that the Chief of Police's conduct during the initial hearing raised a reasonable apprehension of bias, citing the Chief's acquaintance with the appellant's mother-in-law, the handling of a missing notebook, and an alleged statement in the transcript that there would be 'no use of appeal.' The Commission found no evidence of bias, accepted an affidavit correcting the transcript error, and held that the missing notebook was not crucial evidence.

The Commission also granted a motion to amend an incorrect date on the charge sheet, finding no prejudice to the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing an order from a Staff Sergeant to work overtime at the end of his shift.

The appellant argued that the Staff Sergeant only had authority to ask for volunteers or to order off-duty officers in an emergency.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the rules and regulations provided lawful authority for a superior officer to order an officer to work overtime when their services are deemed necessary.