John Rodriguez

The applicant police services board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to terminate 13 civilian communications employees in order to contract out dispatch and 911 services to another municipal police service.

The applicant cited severe financial difficulties and outdated equipment as reasons for the closure of its own communications centre.

The Commission held a public meeting and reviewed the proposal, finding that the contracted police service could provide adequate and effective policing communications.

As the applicant and the police association had already reached a severance agreement for the affected employees, the Commission granted consent to the reduction.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of dismissal arising from a 2004 traffic stop and drug seizure.

The Hearing Officer had found the Appellant guilty of neglect of duty based largely on hearsay utterances from a disgraced former officer and circumstantial evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer committed numerous errors of law, including admitting highly unreliable and prejudicial hearsay evidence, shifting the burden of proof onto the Appellant, making irreconcilable findings of fact, and improperly using his own police experience to fill gaps in the evidentiary record.

The finding of misconduct was quashed, rendering the penalty moot.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a penalty of 80 hours forfeiture imposed after being found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to properly maintain his police notebooks over a 29-month period.

The appellant argued the hearing officer was biased, misconstrued facts, and imposed a harsh and excessive penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and appropriately considered all relevant sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the public interest.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for deceit and discreditable conduct, as well as the penalty of a six-month demotion, arising from his failure to properly investigate a fellow officer's possession of potentially stolen property.

The appellant argued the hearing officer misapprehended evidence and provided deficient reasons.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range of outcomes.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted of impaired driving while off duty.

A joint submission proposed a forfeiture of 100 hours, but the Hearing Officer rejected it and imposed a 15-month demotion.

On appeal, the Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias in the Hearing Officer's decision to reject the joint submission or his reference to public opinion.

However, the Commission found the 15-month demotion was harsh and excessive, as the Hearing Officer failed to distinguish the appellant's circumstances from more serious cases and placed too much weight on general deterrence.

The penalty was varied to a 9-month demotion.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after she pled guilty to two counts of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct stemmed from two off-duty incidents of impaired driving for which she was criminally convicted.

The appellant argued that her misconduct was driven by her alcohol addiction and anxiety disorder, which were now in sustained remission, and sought reinstatement with a demotion.

The Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the repeated and serious nature of the misconduct, combined with her prior disciplinary record, outweighed the mitigating factors of her rehabilitation efforts.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty.

After the appeal hearing but before the Commission rendered its decision, the appellant retired from the police service.

The Commission determined that under the Police Services Act, its jurisdiction over disciplinary matters ends once an individual ceases to be a police officer.

Consequently, the Commission found it lacked jurisdiction to continue the appeal and issue a decision on the merits.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-month demotion and mandatory anger management.

The misconduct charge arose from allegations that the appellant physically assaulted his spouse on three occasions.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence, erred in assessing credibility, and lacked a sufficient evidentiary foundation for her findings.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the legal tests for credibility and standard of proof, and that her factual findings were reasonable and supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly considered relevant factors, including the seriousness of domestic violence and the appellant's employment history.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to five charges of misconduct, including insubordination and discreditable conduct, arising from over 150 unauthorized CPIC and PIP searches and inappropriate use of police equipment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review to the Hearing Officer's decision.

The Commission found no manifest errors, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the evidence, assessed credibility, and applied appropriate sentencing principles.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty and the resulting penalty of a 40-hour forfeiture.

The misconduct charge arose from the appellant's failure to properly investigate a domestic violence complaint reported by a member of the public.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility and in concluding that there was sufficient information to warrant further investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer applied the correct legal principles in assessing credibility and that his findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting that the Hearing Officer appropriately weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors, including the seriousness of failing to properly respond to a domestic violence complaint.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination after failing to comply with an order from the Chief of Police to provide information regarding his secondary employment in a home construction company.

The appellant argued that the order was unlawful because it requested personal and corporate tax records.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Chief's order was lawful as it was issued for the public purpose of investigating compliance with the Police Services Act.

The Commission held that the appellant had a duty to respond to the lawful portions of the order and that relying on legal advice did not provide a lawful excuse for his failure to comply.