Katie Osborne

The appellant, a police inspector, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of Discreditable Conduct for using discriminatory and insulting language during a recruitment interview with a South Asian candidate.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer applied the wrong legal test, erred in credibility assessments, and reversed the burden of proof.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer correctly applied an objective test to determine the language was offensive to community standards, properly assessed credibility, and correctly applied the standard of clear, convincing, and weighty evidence.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay Police Services Act misconduct proceedings against two police officers for abuse of process due to delay.

The proceedings arose from an incident over eight years prior, and the Hearing Officer found the delay, largely attributable to the prosecution, was inexcusable and caused significant prejudice to the officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Blencoe test for abuse of process.

The Commission concluded the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of Discreditable Conduct and ordering her resignation or dismissal.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty domestic incident where the appellant held a knife to her throat while holding her child and threatened to drive into a transport truck.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer made numerous errors, including failing to properly consider her mental state and PTSD diagnosis.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police service and that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severity of the conduct and the appellant's disciplinary history.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of misconduct charges against four Toronto Police Service officers involved in his arrest during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had found the officers' use of distractionary strikes justified due to the appellant's active resistance.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the decision on a reasonableness standard and found no error in the Hearing Officer's conclusions, confirming the dismissal of the charges.

The Commission noted concerns about qualifying a TPS training officer as an expert witness but held it did not affect the outcome as it was not raised as a ground of appeal.

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 penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay imposed on the respondent police officer for discreditable conduct.

The respondent had previously been convicted of assault with a weapon for his actions during the appellant's arrest at the G20 Summit.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing aggravating and mitigating factors, and the intervener argued the Hearing Officer improperly allowed a collateral attack on the criminal conviction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's penalty decision was reasonable and did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack.

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 the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to deceit and insubordination.

The misconduct involved making a false statement to investigators regarding his brother's whereabouts and conducting unauthorized database searches.

The Commission found the penalty of dismissal unreasonable, noting the Hearing Officer erred in principle by relying on speculative findings and the fact of the officer's suspension.

The Commission varied the penalty to a forfeiture of nine days' pay for insubordination, and a 30-day suspension without pay followed by a two-year demotion to fourth-class constable for deceit.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty decision ordering him to resign or be summarily dismissed following convictions for criminal harassment and breach of trust.

The misconduct involved stalking his former partner and conducting unauthorized police database searches.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer appropriately weighed the penalty factors, including the egregious nature of the offences, the damage to the police service's reputation, and the appellant's limited prospects for rehabilitation.

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

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for allegedly using unnecessary force during the G20 summit.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the Notice of Hearing served on the officer differed from the draft notice approved by the Police Services Board in a delay application under section 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's role under section 83(17) is limited to determining whether the delay in serving the notice was reasonable, not approving the specific wording of the charge.

The Commission revoked the stay and remitted the matter for a re-hearing.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision imposing the penalty of immediate dismissal following his guilty plea to a charge of use of unnecessary force.

The officer had assaulted a handcuffed, intoxicated prisoner in the back of a scout car after daring the prisoner to spit in his face.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors, including the officer's prior disciplinary record and the egregious nature of the assault.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's decision to be reasonable and confirmed the penalty of immediate dismissal.

The Kingston Fire and Rescue Services (KFRS) issued an Inspection Order requiring the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board to construct a fire separation in a school's stairwells.

The School Board appealed the order but completed the required work prior to the appeal's final disposition.

KFRS brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of mootness.

The Fire Safety Commission denied the motion, finding that the live controversy regarding KFRS's authority to issue the order remained unresolved.

The Commission further held that even if the matter were moot, it would exercise its discretion to hear the appeal due to the important public safety issues and broader implications for other schools.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision by an Ontario Fire Marshal Delegate upholding an Inspection Order issued by Toronto Fire Services.

The order required the installation of interconnected smoke alarms, fire protection features for openings near fire escapes, and a fire-rated furnace room door at the appellant's residential building.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the building accommodated more than 10 residents and was a three-storey building, meaning it did not qualify for exceptions under the Fire Code.

The Commission confirmed the required measures as necessary to ensure fire safety and amended the compliance dates.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for Discreditable Conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal from the police service.

The officer had previously pleaded guilty to the disciplinary charge, which was based on a criminal conviction that was later overturned on appeal.

The Commission held that the subsequent overturning of the criminal conviction did not render the original, informed guilty plea a nullity.

The Commission further found that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the officer's disciplinary history and the serious nature of the misconduct, which involved violence and threats against members of the public.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a 26-day hearing regarding claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, all parties sought costs against each other.

The self-represented appellants alleged the respondent and added party misled the tribunal and engaged in bullying, while the respondent and added party argued the appellants' conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied all costs requests, finding that while the hearing was challenging and acrimonious, the conduct of the parties did not rise to the level of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith under Rule 14.1, particularly considering the appellants' self-represented status and emotional investment in the case.