Karlene J. Hussey

The appellant, a police officer, appealed to the Commission alleging that his resignation was involuntary and amounted to constructive dismissal, having been obtained under the threat of criminal prosecution.

The Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant had voluntarily resigned to avoid a criminal trial, meaning there was no disciplinary decision to appeal.

Furthermore, even if there had been a decision, the appeal was filed outside the mandatory 30-day statutory limitation period.

The appellant, a police officer, resigned from the Ontario Provincial Police after being charged criminally and facing disciplinary proceedings.

He alleged his resignation was involuntary and amounted to constructive dismissal, and appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the appellant voluntarily resigned to avoid a criminal trial, meaning there was no disciplinary decision to appeal.

Furthermore, even if there had been a decision, the appeal was filed beyond the mandatory 30-day statutory limitation period.

The appellant, a police officer, was charged criminally and suspended.

He subsequently agreed with the Crown to resign and take early retirement in exchange for the withdrawal of the criminal charges.

Months later, he appealed to the Commission, alleging constructive dismissal and harassment.

The Commission dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the appellant voluntarily resigned to avoid a criminal trial, meaning there was no disciplinary decision to appeal, and in any event, the appeal was filed outside the mandatory 30-day statutory limitation period.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police appealed a disciplinary sanction imposed on a constable by a delegated Hearing Officer.

The respondent constable brought a preliminary motion arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Commissioner is not a 'complainant' under section 70 of the Police Services Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that interpreting the Commissioner as a complainant would lead to absurdities within the statutory scheme.

The motion to strike the appeal was granted.

The County of Brant and the Brant County Police Services Board applied for consent to abolish the Brant County Police Service and replace it with Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contract policing, following municipal amalgamation.

The Commission reviewed the proposed staffing, facilities, deployment, and transition plans, comparing them to historical levels and similar municipalities.

Finding that the proposed integrated service would provide adequate and effective policing and that all existing members were fairly accommodated, the Commission approved the disbandment subject to conditions regarding facility renovations and civilian staff dedication.

The Guelph Police Services Board requested a hearing under section 39(5) of the Police Services Act after the City of Guelph reduced its proposed 1999 budget by $252,000.

The Board argued the funds were necessary to hire additional staff, cover overtime, and meet new provincial standards, while the City contended the approved budget was sufficient given past surpluses and under-spending.

The Commission authorized most of the disputed expenditures, including funds for court security, traffic enforcement, data entry, and Y2K compliance, but disallowed the hiring of one general duty officer and an unexplained miscellaneous expense.

The Town of North Perth applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Listowel Police Service and contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for policing services.

The Commission reviewed the OPP proposal and found that it would provide adequate and effective policing for the newly restructured municipality, noting the increased staffing, enhanced capabilities, and appropriate facilities.

As no agreement had been reached regarding severance for the uniformed members of the Listowel Police Service, the Commission ordered that any unresolved severance issues be referred to arbitration.

Consent to abolish the police service was granted subject to compliance with the arbitration order.

The appellant police officer was dismissed after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for stealing $200 from an automated teller machine while on duty.

On appeal, the officer sought to introduce new evidence, including a psychiatric report and letters of support, to mitigate the penalty.

The Commission applied the Palmer test and admitted the letters of support, finding they had the potential to alter the result.

Applying the usefulness test, the Commission concluded that while the theft was serious, the officer's 16 years of unblemished service, the isolated nature of the incident, and the strong community and peer support indicated he could be reformed and would not irreparably damage the service's reputation.

The penalty of dismissal was varied to a demotion to third class constable for a minimum of one year.

The appellant police officer appealed three findings of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalties, including dismissal, arising from allegations of inappropriate sexual comments and contact with female members of the public.

The Commission overturned two convictions due to significant delay in prosecution and issues with the investigation, including the destruction of survey records.

The Commission upheld the third conviction relating to a 1994 incident but found the penalty of immediate dismissal too harsh, substituting a penalty of demotion to second class constable for six months and mandatory sexual harassment training.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed for discreditable conduct involving the harassment and intimidation of a civilian while on duty.

Due to the inadvertent destruction of a material part of the record, the parties presented a joint submission to vary the penalty to resignation or dismissal within seven days, avoiding the need for a new hearing.

The Commission accepted the joint submission, finding it served the public interest, spared the victim from testifying again, and fell within the appropriate range of penalties.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for discreditable conduct and insubordination after he used profanity toward a superior officer and ignored a direct order.

The appellant argued a defence of lawful excuse, claiming his behaviour was caused by the side effects of prescription pain medication.

The Commission dismissed the appeal of the convictions, finding the medical evidence speculative and noting the appellant's ability to appropriately respond to another superior officer moments later.

However, the Commission remitted the matter of penalty back to the Hearing Officer, as the imposed penalty of 'admonishment' is not permitted under section 61(1) of the Police Services Act following a formal hearing.

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

The officer had engaged in off-duty secondary employment acting as an escort for a member of the public without seeking permission or disclosing the potential conflict of interest.

The Commission found that while the Hearing Officer's reasons were deficient and an off-the-record discussion with the prosecutor was imprudent, there was clear and convincing evidence of discreditable conduct based on the undisputed facts.

However, the Commission found the penalty of dismissal to be excessive, as this was the officer's first disciplinary infraction chronologically, and reduced the penalty to a demotion to Third Class Constable for one year.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and a penalty of five days without pay.

The charge arose from allegations of sexual harassment involving off-duty physical contact with another officer over a two-and-a-half-year period.

The Commission found that the adjudicator erred in linking the off-duty activities to the workplace to conclude the environment was poisoned.

The Commission held that the private, off-duty conduct between consenting adults did not bring discredit upon the police service.

Furthermore, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that the appellant knew or ought to have known the conduct was unwelcome.

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

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct based on three criminal convictions for assault.

The assaults occurred prior to his employment as a police officer.

The appellant argued the hearing officer relied on evidence not presented at the hearing and applied personal bias regarding spousal abuse.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer properly considered objective factors and that the appellant's numerous criminal convictions severely impaired his credibility and ability to carry out the duties of a police officer, justifying dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services held a hearing into the conduct of the members of the Wallaceburg Police Services Board.

The Board had laid off three members of the police service (two cadets and one civilian communicator) to meet budget cuts, without obtaining the Commission's consent under section 40 of the Police Services Act.

The Commission found that the layoffs constituted a reduction in the size of the force, requiring consent, and that the Board's reliance on the probationary termination provisions in section 44 was improper.

The Commission concluded that the Board members' actions constituted misconduct and a failure to perform their duties in a satisfactory manner.

The four current members of the Board were removed from their positions.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved the officer pointing his loaded service revolver at his partner and himself while intoxicated off-duty.

The Commission dismissed a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence, applying the Palmer test.

The Commission upheld the adjudicator's credibility findings and conviction, noting the evidence was clear and convincing.

The penalty of dismissal was also upheld, as the officer's reckless mishandling of a firearm while intoxicated demonstrated a flagrant lack of judgment and abuse of power, justifying termination despite his previous good record.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion to Third Class Constable.

The conviction arose from an off-duty incident where the appellant, while intoxicated, pointed his service firearm at another officer.

The Commission dismissed a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence, applying the Palmer test.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the adjudicator's credibility findings, which preferred the evidence of a civilian witness over the appellant's testimony.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, finding the appellant's careless disregard for firearms training and policies to be a serious breach incompatible with police duties.

Constable Bettes appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty and a penalty of forfeiture of three days' pay arising from his investigation of a motor vehicle accident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and improper procedure, finding that the matter was properly dealt with as an internal disciplinary issue rather than a public complaint.

The Commission upheld the finding of guilt but reduced the penalty to a reprimand, noting the officer's junior status, lack of prior discipline, and the harshness of the original penalty.

The Appellant, an OPP Sergeant, appealed a disciplinary conviction for Damage to Clothing or Equipment after rear-ending a civilian vehicle with his police cruiser in winter conditions.

He argued the Adjudicator erred by rejecting expert evidence regarding potential mechanical failure and by ignoring the investigating officer's recommendation against disciplinary action.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to adjust his driving to the poor visibility and road conditions, and that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the conviction.