John P. MacBeth

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing an order to trim his moustache to comply with the force's personal appearance regulations.

The appellant argued the regulation was unlawful, discriminatorily enforced, and that his reassignment to menial tasks prior to the hearing constituted double jeopardy.

The majority of the Commission dismissed the appeal.

In dissenting reasons, one member found that the appellant's reassignment to menial tasks amounted to punishment before formal conviction and would have allowed the appeal on the ground of double jeopardy.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing to obey an order to trim his moustache to comply with personal appearance regulations.

The appellant argued the regulation was unlawful, discriminatorily enforced, and that his reassignment to menial tasks prior to the hearing constituted double jeopardy.

The majority of the Commission dismissed the appeal.

The dissenting member would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the appellant's reassignment to menial tasks amounted to punishment prior to formal conviction, thus constituting double jeopardy.

The applicants, two police officers, applied to quash disciplinary charges against them under the Police Act, arguing undue delay under Regulation 791 and Section 11(b) of the Charter.

The delay was primarily due to the standard practice of postponing disciplinary proceedings until related criminal charges were resolved.

The Commission found no undue delay, noting that the postponement is often in the officers' best interest and that recent delays were due to intervening court motions.

The application was dismissed without prejudice.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for neglect of duty and the penalty of forfeiture of two days' pay.

The officer had failed to attend court as a witness after reporting sick, without informing his supervisor of his court commitment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that officers have a duty to communicate their inability to attend court to the proper person when reporting sick.

However, due to the unusual nature of the charge, the Commission reduced the penalty to the forfeiture of one day's leave.

The Arnprior Police Association applied to determine the status of a civilian clerk-typist employed by the Town of Arnprior Police.

The Town conceded she was a member of the police force but argued she was employed in a confidential capacity and should be excluded from the Association as a senior officer.

The Commission found insufficient evidence of a confidential capacity and noted that no senior officers association existed in the force as required by section 30(2) of the Police Act.

The application was allowed, confirming the Association's entitlement to bargain on the employee's behalf.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed convictions for insubordination arising from three exchanges with a superior officer.

The first charge had been dismissed at trial.

On appeal, the Commission allowed the appeal on the second charge, finding the evidence unclear as to when the disobedience occurred since the superior had acquiesced to the appellant's request for more time.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the third charge, finding that the appellant's manner of speaking to his superior, which included profanity and complaints about being put in a difficult position, was insolent, rebellious, and disrespectful.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for damage to equipment under the Police Act after losing control of his cruiser during a high-speed pursuit and striking a hydro pole.

He argued that the evidence did not support a finding of carelessness and that the charge was void because no written complaint was proven at trial.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the facts of the accident alone were sufficient to establish carelessness in the absence of an explanation at trial.

The Commission also held that the appellant's failure to demand production of the written complaint at the inception of the trial constituted an acceptance of the trial officer's jurisdiction.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Board of Commissioners of Police applied to the Ontario Police Commission to determine the status of its Chief Clerk, a civilian member, as a senior officer.

The Police Association opposed the application, arguing the position was within the bargaining unit.

The Commission found that the Chief Clerk possessed confidential budget and salary information and participated in in-camera meetings regarding negotiation strategy.

Consequently, the Commission determined the position was of a 'confidential capacity' and granted the application to classify the Chief Clerk as a senior officer.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and sentence for discreditable conduct after using profane and insulting language toward a civilian clerk.

The appellant argued the charge was improperly laid under subsection 1(a)(i) of the Code of Offences because the conduct did not occur in public.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that public discredit is not a required element of the offence and that internal discredit to the reputation of the police force is sufficient.

The penalty was upheld given the appellant's previous record.

The appellant, a police constable convicted of deceit and dismissed from the force, applied for an order declaring that a letter sent by the Police Association requesting an extension of time to file an appeal constituted a valid Notice of Appeal under Regulation 791 of the Police Act.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the application, finding that the letter explicitly requested an extension of time and could not be construed as a Notice of Appeal itself.