Murray Chitra

The appellant, a 25-year veteran police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal or resignation imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The disciplinary charge stemmed from an off-duty incident where the appellant, after failing a use of force re-qualification, consumed alcohol, destroyed property in his home, and violently resisted arrest by assaulting and threatening responding officers.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the evidence or the application of the relevant penalty factors, and concluded that the appellant's egregious conduct destroyed his usefulness to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for insubordination and breach of confidence, as well as the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal.

The charges arose from an unauthorized CPIC check on a surveillance vehicle involved in a joint forces investigation, and the subsequent disclosure of that information to an undercover officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the credibility assessments and factual determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was also upheld given the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's lack of remorse, and the paramount importance of protecting the CPIC database.

The appellant police officers appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from a warrantless entry into a tenant's private residence while responding to a landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid rent.

The appellants argued the Hearing Officer failed to consider their good faith and intentions.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably applied an objective test based on the reasonable expectations of the public, and correctly concluded that the officers' unauthorized entry constituted a trespass that would bring discredit to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of misconduct arising from an unprovoked assault on a handcuffed prisoner accompanied by discriminatory comments.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in principle by disregarding positive character evidence and failing to properly apply the usefulness test.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant factors, including mitigating ones, and reasonably concluded that the egregious nature of the misconduct and the bias demonstrated rendered the officer no longer useful to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose from his investigation of a stolen vehicle and its occupants, where he failed to properly search, inventory, and determine ownership of property found in the vehicle, and improperly released property to a suspect.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence and that the appellant, as the lead investigator, was responsible for ensuring a proper investigation was conducted.

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

The officer had stopped a motorist and issued five summonses, but also prepared a second set of six summonses using the driving history of another individual with the same name.

The officer failed to serve the second set of summonses but later testified in court that he had, resulting in the innocent motorist being convicted in absentia, fined, and incarcerated for five days.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt, noting it was well-supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding the officer's actions constituted egregious misconduct that caused a serious miscarriage of justice and irreparably damaged his usefulness to the police service.

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

The officer had issued two sets of summonses to a motorist but only served one set, leading to the motorist being convicted in absentia on the unserved charges and wrongfully incarcerated for five days.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the evidence supported the conviction and that the officer's deliberate dishonesty, lack of remorse, and the severe consequences to the innocent motorist justified the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of immediate dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to four counts of misconduct, including neglect of duty, deceit, and two counts of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved engaging in sexual activity with members of the public while on duty and in uniform, as well as leaving a scheduled training seminar to meet a woman and subsequently falsifying duty reports.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly considered the relevant factors including the officer's potential for rehabilitation, and imposed a penalty consistent with similar infractions.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to ten counts of misconduct, including discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and corrupt practice.

The misconduct involved the unauthorized removal of pornographic photographs from a citizen's home, failing to account for police batons, and engaging in an inappropriate, undocumented relationship with a 17-year-old female while on duty.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the officer's deliberate course of conduct, lack of appreciation for established procedures, and prior disciplinary record demonstrated he was ungovernable and beyond rehabilitation.

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

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct and was found guilty of one count of corrupt practice.

The misconduct involved importing khat while returning from Kenya, attempting to use his police status to avoid customs scrutiny, and lying to officials.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer properly balanced the relevant factors, including the serious nature of the misconduct, the damage to the police service's reputation, and the lack of rehabilitation potential, and upheld the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of discreditable conduct.

The charges arose from criminal proceedings involving an assault on a fellow officer with whom he had a domestic relationship, and two subsequent breaches of a recognizance.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant penalty factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for threatening, and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The Commission concluded that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable and within the Hearing Officer's discretion.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for neglect of duty, arguing that the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent argued the appeal itself was out of time under section 70(1).

The Commission found that the appeal was filed in a timely manner because the appellant never received written notice of the hearing officer's ruling on the limitation period motion.

However, the Commission also found that the Notice of Hearing was served within the six-month limitation period, as the period commenced when the designated complaints investigator received the appellant's notes and formulated the opinion that misconduct had occurred.

The conviction for neglect of duty was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for neglect of duty, arguing that the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent argued the appeal itself was out of time under section 70(1).

The Commission held that the appeal was timely because the officer never received written notice of the hearing officer's ruling on the limitation motion.

However, the Commission dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the six-month limitation period commenced when the designated investigator received the officer's notes and formulated the opinion that misconduct occurred, making the Notice of Hearing timely.

The Township of Terrace Bay applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Terrace Bay Police Service, intending to contract policing services from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposed OPP policing model, which involved integrating municipal resources with the Nipigon OPP Detachment.

The Commission found that the proposed staffing levels, supervision, and equipment were adequate and effective.

However, the Commission imposed conditions requiring facility upgrades, including cell renovations and backup power, and mandated monitoring of response times during periods when officers are on call.

The Commission consented to the abolishment of the municipal police service, directing that any unresolved severance issues for existing members proceed to arbitration.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct arising from an off-duty assault on a contractor he believed had stolen his rings.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the penalty and found that the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to significant mitigating factors, including the appellant's unblemished ten-year service record, his acceptance of responsibility, his pursuit of counselling, and the victim's forgiveness.

The Commission varied the penalty from dismissal to a one-year demotion to fourth class constable.