Krishan D. Uppal

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 12-hour forfeiture with conditions.

The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant discharged his firearm at the tires of a fleeing suspect vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer fired for the sole purpose of stopping the vehicle, contrary to O. Reg. 546/99.

However, the Commission varied the penalty by removing the condition that the penalty be satisfied within one month and reported to the Professional Standards Bureau, leaving the timing to the unit commander.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and the associated penalty of a 12-hour forfeiture.

The conviction arose from an incident where the officer discharged his firearm at the rear tire of a fleeing stolen vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer fired for the sole purpose of stopping the vehicle, contrary to section 8 of O. Reg. 546/99, and not out of an immediate fear for his life, as the vehicle was passing him at the time.

However, the Commission varied the penalty by deleting the Hearing Officer's conditions regarding the specific timing and reporting of the 12-hour forfeiture, finding those matters best left to the officer's unit commander.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty imposed for discharging his firearm at the tires of a fleeing vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer's actions violated the prohibition against firing at a moving vehicle for the sole purpose of stopping it, as he was not in immediate danger when he fired.

The Commission varied the penalty by removing the condition that the forfeiture of twelve hours be completed within one month and reported to the Professional Standards Bureau, leaving the timing to the unit commander.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary decision finding the respondent police sergeant guilty of neglect of duty for denying the appellant his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The respondent had held the appellant incommunicado for over 27 hours due to officer safety concerns during a raid on a dangerous crime family's property.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the Charter breach began only after the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed the appellant's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter breach, and increased the penalty to a reduction in rank for six months.

The appellant, Fred Parker, and the respondent, Sergeant Randy Blakely, both appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding Sergeant Blakely guilty of neglect of duty for denying Mr. Parker his right to counsel for approximately 90 minutes.

Mr. Parker was held incommunicado for over 27 hours following his arrest due to officer safety concerns during a related police raid.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the Charter breach began only when the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed Mr. Parker's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter violation, and substituted a penalty of reduction in rank for six months.

The appellant, a civilian, and the respondent, a police sergeant, both appealed a disciplinary decision.

The sergeant had been found guilty of neglect of duty for denying the civilian his right to counsel for approximately 90 minutes after holding him incommunicado for over 27 hours due to officer safety concerns during a raid.

The Commission upheld the finding of misconduct, agreeing that the Charter violation began when the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed the civilian's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter violation, and substituted a penalty of reduction in rank for six months.

The applicant complainant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police discipline proceedings against the respondent officer.

The Commission held it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an interlocutory decision refusing to amend the notice of charge.

It further held that the applicant's appeal of the misconduct finding did not require leave, as it proceeded as of right under s. 70(3) of the Police Services Act.

Finally, the Commission established a three-part test for granting leave to appeal a penalty decision under s. 70(4) and granted leave, finding that the appropriate penalty for breaches of fundamental Charter rights is a matter of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The applicant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police misconduct.

The Commission denied leave to appeal the interlocutory decision refusing to amend the charge, finding jurisdiction only extends to final orders.

The Commission found no leave was required to appeal the misconduct finding, as it proceeds as of right.

Finally, the Commission established a three-part test for granting a complainant leave to appeal a penalty decision under s. 70(4) of the Police Services Act, and granted leave on the basis that the underlying Charter breaches were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The applicant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police discipline proceedings against the respondent officer.

The Commission dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the refusal to amend the charge, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals of interlocutory orders.

The Commission found that leave was not required to appeal the misconduct finding, as it could be appealed as of right.

Finally, the Commission granted leave to appeal the penalty decision (a reprimand), establishing a three-part test for granting leave under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act and finding that the Charter issues raised were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.