Julio Menezes

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct after having sexual intercourse with a civilian in their patrol car while on duty.

They argued the matter should have been handled as a public complaint, which would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and challenged the admissibility of electronically intercepted conversations under Section 8 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding the complaint was not a public complaint, the Charter arguments failed, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severe breach of public trust.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after he refused a lawful order to provide his residential address to the Force.

He argued the charge should be quashed due to a three-month delay in scheduling the appeal, that the Force failed to comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that he had a lawful excuse because his wife had previously been harassed by another officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the delay was not undue, the Force had complied with the privacy legislation, and the harassment claim was not raised at the time of the order and did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The conviction and penalty of forfeiture of two days' leave were upheld.

The appellant police officer was convicted of multiple counts of discreditable conduct for making unwelcome sexual comments and physical advances toward female colleagues and civilians while off-duty at a motel during a temporary posting.

The Commission upheld the convictions, rejecting the appellant's explanations and his argument that the relaxed off-duty atmosphere excused his behaviour.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, finding the original sentence too harsh given the appellant's efforts at rehabilitation, and reduced his rank to Fourth Class Constable.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the penalty of resignation.

The charge arose from a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl.

The appellant had been acquitted of criminal sexual assault charges because the Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the conduct was discreditable and contrary to society's expectations.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of resignation, noting the appellant's prior criminal and Police Act convictions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer was convicted of neglect of duty for failing to prepare a fingerprint comparison chart prior to a preliminary hearing, resulting in the withdrawal of criminal charges.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant should have used his rest days to complete the task.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission set aside the conviction, finding that the appellant had made a diligent attempt to fulfill his duties during his regular working hours and that the expectation to use rest days was based on hindsight.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of neglect of duty arising from his failure to properly acknowledge and accept an emergency dispatch call regarding a child with scissors stuck in her head.

Although the officer immediately drove toward the scene, he failed to activate the 'Accept Detail' button or advise the dispatcher, instead stating he was off shift in fifteen minutes.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the failure to properly acknowledge the call and proceed without hesitation in the prescribed manner constituted neglect of duty.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions and penalties from two separate disciplinary trials.

In the first trial, he was reduced in rank for neglect of duty after failing to meet performance appraisal objectives over a twelve-month period.

The Commission found the objectives were reasonable and did not constitute an illegal order.

In the second trial, he was ordered to resign or be dismissed for neglect of duty and deceit related to failing to follow up on an investigation and falsely reporting its status to dispose of evidence.

The Commission dismissed both appeals, upholding the convictions and penalties.

Two off-duty police officers appealed their convictions and penalties (two and three days leave) for arresting a taxi driver for impaired driving without sufficient cause.

The officers claimed the driver showed signs of impairment, but on-duty officers found no evidence of impairment and a breath test was negative.

The hearing officer resolved the credibility issue against the officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the convictions, finding ample evidence to support the credibility finding.

The Commission confirmed the penalties, noting they considered increasing them but refrained because Force counsel did not seek an increase.

Two off-duty police officers appealed their convictions and penalties under the Police Act for arresting a taxi driver for impaired driving without sufficient cause.

The officers claimed the driver showed signs of impairment, but subsequent breath tests were negative and other officers found no evidence of impairment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Hearing Officer's credibility findings against the officers.

The Commission confirmed the penalties, noting it considered increasing them but refrained because Force counsel had not sought an increase.