Michele J. Shephard

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct and penalized with a forfeiture of five days off after a confrontation at a retail store.

The officer became verbally abusive and engaged in a physical altercation with security after the store refused to accept a 100-dollar bill.

On appeal, the Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence despite minor inconsistencies in witness testimony.

The penalty was also upheld as appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct arising from an off-duty incident at a retail store.

The officer had become verbally abusive and engaged in a physical confrontation with a security guard after being told the store would not accept a $100 bill.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the penalty of a forfeiture of five days off was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a forfeiture of five days off.

The conviction stemmed from an incident where the appellant became verbally abusive and engaged in a physical confrontation with a security guard after a store refused to accept a $100 bill.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the penalty was within the appropriate range.

The appeal against both conviction and penalty was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for two counts of discreditable conduct and the penalty of dismissal imposed for a third count of careless handling of a firearm.

The Commission upheld the conviction for showing a scrotum piercing to a colleague, finding it brought discredit to the police service.

However, the Commission overturned the conviction regarding a practical joke involving a dead cat, as the matter had been properly addressed through informal resolution.

The Commission upheld the penalty of resignation or dismissal for the firearm charge, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of nine separate incidents of pointing or mishandling a service weapon.

The appellant, a 20-year veteran police officer, appealed his convictions for misconduct related to showing a scrotum piercing to a colleague and placing a dead cat on another colleague's vehicle, as well as the penalty of dismissal imposed for nine incidents of careless handling of his service firearm.

The Commission upheld the conviction regarding the piercing, finding it brought discredit to the police service.

The Commission overturned the conviction regarding the dead cat, finding the matter had been properly resolved informally.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal for the firearm incidents, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of repeated, unprovoked gunplay by a police officer.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for two counts of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal for a third count (careless handling of a firearm).

The Commission upheld the conviction for showing a scrotum piercing to a colleague, finding it brought discredit to the police service.

The Commission allowed the appeal on the second count (placing a dead cat on a colleague's vehicle) because the matter had been properly resolved through informal resolution.

The Commission upheld the penalty of resignation or dismissal for the firearm charge, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of nine separate incidents of pointing or pressing a service weapon against colleagues.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The conviction stemmed from an overheard conversation in which the appellant allegedly made reprisal comments about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint against him.

The appellant argued the hearing officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of one officer who overheard only a portion of the conversation.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments he allegedly made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed witness credibility and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments he allegedly made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed witness credibility, applied the correct legal principles, and reached a conclusion supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of one count of neglect of duty and two counts of deceit, which resulted in his dismissal.

The charges stemmed from allegations that he malingered on calls, made false statements to his supervisor about his activities, and destroyed a computer disk containing records.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services allowed the appeal and overturned all convictions.

The Commission found no evidence to support the malingering charge, noting the hearing officer accepted the officer's logs showing he was patrolling.

The Commission also found no evidence of intent to mislead regarding the statements, and concluded the destruction of the computer disk was done in accordance with established police practice.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for neglect of duty and deceit, and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and overturned all convictions.

The Commission found no evidence to support the neglect of duty charge, noting the Hearing Officer's contradictory findings regarding the officer's notes.

The Commission also found no evidence of intent to mislead to support the first deceit charge, and concluded the officer had a lawful excuse for destroying a computer disk as he was following established practice.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for neglect of duty and deceit, as well as the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and overturned all convictions.

The Commission found no evidence to support the finding of malingering, noting a contradiction in the Hearing Officer's conclusions regarding the officer's notes.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intent to mislead for the deceit charges, and that the officer had a lawful excuse for destroying a computer disk in accordance with established practice.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of neglect of duty for allegedly failing to take a report and make notes regarding a civilian complaint.

The Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, finding that the prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence linking the appellant to the incident.

The only evidence presented was that the appellant's notebook contained no entries and she submitted no report, but there was no direct evidence that she was assigned to the call, involved in the call, or had any contact with the complainant.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary hearing decision finding her guilty of two counts of neglect of duty for allegedly failing to submit an occurrence report and failing to make notebook entries regarding a civilian complaint.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, finding that the prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence linking the officer to the incident or the complainant.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of neglect of duty for allegedly failing to submit a report and make notes regarding a civilian complaint.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, finding that the prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence linking the officer to the incident.

The Commission noted that the hearing officer's conclusions lacked an evidentiary foundation, as no direct evidence was introduced to prove the officer was assigned to or involved in the call.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for insubordination and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal, arising from her failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and her subsequent conduct during the investigation.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding that the order to answer questions orally was lawful and that the finding of deceit was supported by evidence of her actual knowledge of the events.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the dismissal to a demotion to second class constable for one year, citing her unblemished record and the principle of progressive discipline.

The Town of Deseronto applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish its municipal police service and enter into a contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposed integrated policing arrangement, staffing levels, and facilities.

The Commission found that the proposal would provide adequate and effective police services, provided that an additional full-time officer is added to the municipal complement, a direct emergency telephone is installed at the local office, firm details of the new detachment facility are provided, and severance issues are resolved.

Consent for abolition was granted subject to these conditions.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was found guilty of theft under $5,000 after stealing money from a purse in a bar washroom.

Following a disciplinary hearing, he was ordered to resign or be dismissed.

He appealed the penalty to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his treatment for alcohol and gambling issues.

The Commission admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the theft constituted serious discreditable conduct and that there were insufficient mitigating factors to warrant altering the penalty of dismissal.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing disciplinary charges against several police officers.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion arguing that the applicant failed to serve them with proper notice of the appeal within the 30-day period required by the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The Commission found that the applicant's attempts to serve the officers by faxing the Chief of Police and leaving copies with a student at police headquarters did not constitute proper service.

As the applicant had sufficient information to effect proper service but failed to do so, the preliminary motion was granted and the application for leave to appeal was denied.