Marie Fortier

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.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by appearing to reverse the burden of proof, requiring the officer to prove he had reasonable and probable grounds.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to adequately analyze the officer's subjective belief and whether there was good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

Given the excessive delay of over five years, the Commission revoked the finding of misconduct rather than remitting the matter for a new hearing.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing her from the Windsor Police Service after she was found guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from an incident where the appellant failed to declare alcohol at the US-Canada border, repeatedly lied to border officers, and subsequently sought to use her position to exact revenge on the border officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding that the appellant's consistent pattern of deceit, lack of remorse, and retaliatory conduct outweighed her positive employment history and irreparably damaged her ability to function as a police officer and the reputation of the police service.

Three police officers appealed the penalty of dismissal (or order to resign) imposed by a Hearing Officer after they pled guilty to multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, discreditable conduct, and insubordination.

The misconduct primarily involved their participation in a BBM group where they shared degrading and discriminatory photographs and comments about members of the public and other officers, as well as failing to report another officer's criminal activities.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding that the Hearing Officer did not misapprehend expert psychiatric evidence regarding group dynamics, properly weighed mitigating factors such as rehabilitation and guilty pleas against the egregious nature of the misconduct, and correctly applied the legal test for dismissal.

The Commission upheld the conclusion that the officers' actions irreparably damaged the reputation of the police service, justifying the ultimate penalty of dismissal.

The appellant appealed an order issued by the OSPCA requiring him to provide daily turnout or exercise for three stallions returned to his farm.

The OSPCA issued the order because the farm lacked a turnout paddock, arguing the horses would be deprived of exercise and thus in distress.

The Animal Care Review Board revoked the order, finding that Section 13(1) of the OSPCA Act requires an animal to be in actual distress at the time an order is issued, not 'deemed' or 'future' distress.

The Board concluded there was no evidence the healthy stallions were in distress when the order was issued, noting that walking in-hand is an acceptable form of exercise and the horses were only at the farm temporarily.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to compel the appellant to disclose the current location of the horses.

The applicant fire department sought an order under section 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act authorizing it to demolish a vacant building owned by the respondent.

The respondent had failed to comply with a prior inspection order requiring demolition.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the building was in extreme disrepair, frequently insecure, and occupied by trespassers, creating a high risk of fire that endangered public safety and first responders.

Concluding that the respondent was unlikely to comply promptly or competently, the Commission granted the application and authorized the applicant to demolish the building.