Michele Shephard

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations of off-duty sexual harassment and an inappropriate relationship with a 16-year-old girl.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing process was fair, the Hearing Officer applied the correct 'clear and convincing evidence' standard of proof, and the credibility findings were supported by the evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, the officer's extensive prior disciplinary record, and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal or resignation.

The conviction stemmed from allegations that the appellant engaged in an inappropriate relationship and sexual harassment involving a 16-year-old girl while off duty.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice, that the Hearing Officer misapplied the burden of proof, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard, made reasonable findings of credibility, and imposed an appropriate penalty given the seriousness of the conduct and the appellant's extensive prior disciplinary record.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations that the appellant engaged in an inappropriate relationship and sexual harassment with a 16-year-old girl while off duty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings of credibility, concluding that the standard of clear and convincing evidence was met.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding it consistent with prior cases involving similar off-duty misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations of an inappropriate off-duty relationship and sexual harassment involving a 16-year-old girl.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice, that the hearing officer applied the wrong burden of proof, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard, made reasonable credibility assessments, and imposed a penalty consistent with similar cases of serious misconduct.

The Peel Regional Police Service brought a motion to quash an appeal by Constable Cate for want of jurisdiction.

Constable Cate had been found guilty of insubordination and deceit at a disciplinary hearing regarding missing police notebooks.

Before sentencing, the missing notebooks were discovered.

The Hearing Officer stayed the insubordination charge and declared a mistrial on the deceit charge.

Constable Cate appealed the deceit conviction.

The Service argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the hearing was not completed.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer had no statutory authority to declare a mistrial, meaning the conviction stood.

Given the Hearing Officer's refusal to proceed to sentencing, the hearing was practically concluded, giving the Commission jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The motion to quash was denied.

Two off-duty police officers appealed findings of neglect of duty for failing to report a motor vehicle collision involving their police vehicle and a civilian vehicle.

The officers argued there was no clear evidence of an accident, the hearing was procedurally unfair, the charges were improperly laid, and the reporting order was unclear.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments were supported by evidence, the procedural limitations did not deny natural justice, the Chief of Police had ultimate statutory authority to lay charges, and the reporting order was clear.

The appellant police officer appealed two findings of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion.

The charges arose from off-duty incidents where the appellant, frustrated by the police investigation into break-ins at his home, delivered a threatening Christmas card to a suspect and wrote a threatening message on the inside wall of his house.

The Commission admitted new evidence showing the appellant had been falsely implicated in a robbery, which prejudiced the initial hearing.

The Commission upheld the discreditable conduct finding regarding the Christmas card, noting the appellant used his position to obtain the suspect's address.

However, the Commission dismissed the charge regarding the message on the wall, finding it was a private act with no connection to the police service's reputation.

The penalty was reduced from a four-month demotion to a seven-day loss of pay.