Karen Restoule

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the status of its interim order appointing an Administrator to oversee the Durham Regional Police Service and the Durham Regional Police Services Board.

Finding that a crisis of confidence and fear of reprisal continued to constitute an emergency within the Service, the Commission extended the Administrator's appointment until December 31, 2020, to ensure the ongoing investigation could be completed without interference.

The appellant, an Ontario Provincial Police officer, appealed a penalty decision ordering his resignation or dismissal after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for recording and sharing a sex video of his former girlfriend without her consent.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, the role of his PTSD diagnosis, and the consistency of the penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, supported by the record, and contained no errors in principle.

The penalty of dismissal was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the decision of a Hearing Officer dismissing charges of neglect of duty against three Ottawa Police Service officers.

The charges arose from the officers' investigation of a physical altercation involving the appellant, specifically regarding the failure to photograph the appellant's injuries, failure to review a seized camera, and failure to complete a return to justice form.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law, did not exhibit bias, provided adequate assistance to the unrepresented appellant, and properly assessed the evidence.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's claim of prosecutorial incompetence.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The Hearing Officer imposed a 21-month demotion to Second Class Constable.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by overemphasizing aggravating factors, such as policy memoranda, and failing to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's low breathalyzer readings, lack of impairment indicia, and exemplary work record.

The Commission allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty to a 12-month demotion.

The appellant, a police superintendent acting as Incident Commander during the 2010 G20 Summit, appealed convictions for professional misconduct relating to the mass arrests of protestors at the Novotel Hotel and the intersection of Queen and Spadina.

The Hearing Officer found the arrests were unlawful and constituted an unnecessary exercise of authority, and that the appellant committed discreditable conduct by leaving detainees in inclement weather.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law regarding reasonable and probable grounds and the ancillary powers doctrine.

On the cross-appeals regarding penalty, the Commission found the original penalties (a reprimand and forfeiture of 10 days off) were unreasonable given the severity of the Charter breaches.

The Commission varied the penalties to the forfeiture of 20 days off for each of the two unlawful arrest convictions, to be served consecutively with the 20 days off forfeited for discreditable conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit for falsifying Daily Activity Reporting (DAR) records.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in finding an intent to deceive, misapprehended the evidence, and improperly admitted statements he made during a compelled interview under section 83(6) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably inferred an intent to deceive from the detailed falsifications and the potential benefit to the appellant.

The Commission also held that section 83(6) protects an officer from being compelled to testify at a hearing, but does not preclude the admission of statements made during a disciplinary investigation.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct, which were based on a guilty plea and a joint submission.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, arguing that his guilty plea was involuntary and resulted from the ineffective assistance of his former counsel, who allegedly failed to properly advance a defence based on his mental health (panic attacks).

The Commission admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was fit to instruct counsel, the plea was voluntary, and he failed to establish that his former counsel's representation was incompetent or resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The penalty of a nine-month demotion was confirmed.