Karl R. Fuller

Following an inquiry into the Belleville Police Force, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services found that the Deputy Chief was incapable of performing his duties satisfactorily.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings but remitted the matter of penalty to the Commission to allow the Deputy Chief to make submissions.

After considering the submissions, the Commission ordered that the Deputy Chief be demoted to the rank of Inspector for a minimum of two years and undergo practical instruction to improve his oral communication skills.

The appellant, a police officer, sought an extension of time to appeal a disciplinary finding of insubordination.

The motion was filed before legislative amendments repealed the Commission's power to grant such extensions, but heard after the amendments took effect.

The Commission found it had authority to hear the motion based on the law at the time of filing.

However, the Commission denied the extension, finding that despite arguable grounds for appeal, the appellant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal to the Commission within the time limit and offered no reasonable excuse for the substantial delay.

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 penalty of demotion to Constable Second Class for a minimum of one year, imposed after findings of guilt on two counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and excessive, citing mitigating factors including residual pain from a previous on-duty motor vehicle accident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's repeated disregard for professional standards warranted disciplinary action and the penalty imposed was within the acceptable range.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions and penalties for four counts of discreditable conduct.

The Commission quashed the first count regarding association with a known criminal, finding insufficient evidence that the officer knew of the individual's criminal record.

However, the Commission upheld the convictions for falsely registering a vehicle using a northern Ontario address to avoid fees, and for attempting to influence an Ohio State Trooper during a traffic stop.

The penalties of loss of pay for the upheld counts were confirmed.

The Towns of Bradford West Gwillimbury and Innisfil applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for approval to amalgamate their respective police services into the South Simcoe Police Service.

The Commission reviewed the comprehensive proposal and agreement, which detailed cost-sharing, personnel deployment, and operational restructuring.

Finding that the agreement met the requirements of the Police Services Act and had strong community and municipal support, the Commission approved the amalgamation, though it cautioned against the creation of an 'interim' board not authorized by the Act.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a conviction of discreditable conduct arising from a property dispute with a township road crew.

The appellant had objected to the crew digging a ditch on what he believed was his property, relying on a land survey, and had tossed a worker's hard hat off his fence post.

The Commission found that the appellant acted in a civil and professional manner, doing no more than any citizen would to prevent encroachment on their property.

The Commission concluded there was insufficient evidence that his actions brought or were likely to bring discredit to the police force, allowed the appeal, and quashed the conviction.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for neglect of duty arising from his delegation of duties during an underwater search and rescue re-qualification course.

The prosecution alleged he improperly delegated his duties and failed to report that a diver had not re-qualified due to illness.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding no clear and convincing evidence that the appellant could not delegate his duties to a qualified subordinate, as authorized by Police Orders.

The Commission noted the prosecution appeared to be an unwarranted use of the disciplinary process.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct and a reprimand for failing to disclose a witness statement in a Crown Brief concerning a drinking and driving accident.

The appellant argued that he followed mandatory procedures which directed that only essential witnesses be included, and that his supervising officers approved the brief.

The provided text concludes after summarizing the appellant's submissions.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a disciplinary conviction for neglect of duty and the resulting penalty of forfeiting two days or twenty hours of time off.

The charge arose from his response to a report of missing boaters who subsequently drowned.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the appellant failed to apply full diligence to his duties, notably by booking off his shift without following up on the search or completing an occurrence report.

However, considering the appellant's inexperience and unblemished record, the Commission reduced the penalty to a reprimand.

The Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under s. 39(4) of the Police Services Act to resolve a $50,000 budget shortfall.

The Board argued that previous budget cuts left no room for further reductions, citing increased costs for vehicle replacement and insurance premiums.

The Regional Municipality opposed the application, pointing to a high incidence of tax arrears and the need to be sensitive to property taxpayers' ability to pay.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the Board could operate within the budget approved by the Municipality, and suggested the Board review its vehicle replacement allocation.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of discreditable conduct and penalties of resignation or dismissal arising from two off-duty incidents involving alcohol and drugs.

The Commission reduced the penalty for the first charge (impaired driving) to a forfeiture of twenty days off, noting the Force's principle that alcoholism is a treatable disease.

On the second charge (involvement with crack cocaine), the Commission upheld the finding of guilt based on the officer's presence and participation in a drug scene, but found no clear evidence that he actually used the drug.

The penalty for the second charge was reduced to a demotion to Fourth Class Constable for one year, subject to strict conditions including participation in Alcoholics Anonymous.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and a penalty of 24 hours forfeiture of time off.

The charges arose from a four-day delay in reporting a superior officer's misconduct regarding a lowered breathalyzer reading, and a failure to ensure seized liquor was properly recorded.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the four-day delay in reporting the superior's actions was not unreasonable given the circumstances.

However, the Commission upheld the finding of neglect of duty regarding the failure to properly record the seized liquor, as the appellant's words led subordinate officers to dispose of it.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the penalty was reduced to a forfeiture of 12 hours time off.

Two police officers appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of forfeiting two days off.

The officers had obtained a judge's order to transport a prisoner to police headquarters but instead took him to a restaurant to meet his wife, an undercover participant, to build rapport with the informant.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officers breached a court order, although the deviation was minor and understandable in the context of intelligence gathering.

The Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, quashing the forfeiture of days off and substituting a reprimand.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was involved in a driving altercation where he assaulted a civilian, causing extensive facial damage.

He was convicted of assault causing bodily harm under the Criminal Code.

Following a disciplinary hearing under the Police Services Act, he was found guilty of discreditable conduct and dismissed from the police service.

He appealed the penalty to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing it was disproportionate and disparate compared to other cases.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the severity of the violence and the officer's lack of credibility—highlighted by his reliance on a fabricated timeline regarding his father's accident to claim emotional stress—justified the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

While off duty, the appellant was stopped and found to be driving with an expired validation tag, an expired driver's licence, and an expired insurance certificate.

The appellant argued that he should be treated like any other citizen for regulatory offences and that discreditable conduct should be reserved for more serious issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the public expects police officers to adhere to the laws they enforce, and driving with multiple expired documents fell below that standard.

The appellant police sergeant appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and a penalty of four days' lost pay.

The charge arose from his failure to place himself on duty and take charge of a search and rescue operation for three missing boaters while he was the on-call supervisor.

The Commission found that the Canadian Coast Guard had jurisdiction over the search and that the appellant's physical presence would not have altered the tragic outcome.

The Commission concluded that the appellant did not neglect his duty and quashed the conviction and penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty and the imposed penalty of five days' pay.

The appellant argued that the hearing officer erred in weighing evidence and assessing credibility, and that the penalty was excessive compared to an initial informal offer of admonishment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against the conviction, noting that it could not review credibility findings without a transcript of the hearing.

The Commission also dismissed the penalty appeal, holding that the disparity between an informal offer and a trial penalty is a risk of proceeding to a hearing, and found the five-day penalty reasonable.

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to a discipline offence after receiving a discharge for a criminal conviction under s. 206(1)(e) of the Criminal Code for participating in a pyramid scheme.

The hearing officer imposed a penalty of a reduction in rank for one year, which amounted to a financial loss of approximately $4,000.

The officer appealed the penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the penalty too severe given the officer's unblemished record and the nature of the offence, which was characterized as a prohibited form of gambling.

The penalty was reduced to a loss of five days' pay and a reprimand.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of demotion to the salary level of a Probationary Constable after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for touching a female officer's breast while off duty and intoxicated.

The appellant argued the penalty was too severe given his positive performance appraisals and the circumstances.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the off-duty status and intoxication were not mitigating factors, and that the penalty imposed was the least acceptable penalty for the conduct.