Noëlle Caloren

Following a finding of misconduct against Greg Oliver, a member and former Chair of the Stirling-Rawdon Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a penalty hearing.

The Commission found that Oliver engaged in a deliberate and persistent course of conduct that discredited and compromised the integrity of the Board and the police service, particularly through his antagonistic and disrespectful treatment of the Chief of Police.

Applying the Gardner penalty assessment factors, the Commission concluded that Oliver's lack of remorse, failure to heed advice, and fundamental misunderstanding of his role as a public steward warranted the most severe penalty.

Oliver was ordered removed from the Board.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion seeking the return of allegedly privileged handwritten notes that were disclosed to the respondent, a member of a Police Services Board, in advance of a disciplinary hearing.

The Commission argued the disclosure was inadvertent.

The respondent argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction to order the return, the notes were not privileged, and any privilege was waived.

The panel found that while it had jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to order the return of improperly disclosed documents, the notes in question were not privileged.

Furthermore, even if they were privileged, the disclosure was not inadvertent because the Commission had no practice of vetting documents for privilege prior to disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion seeking the return of allegedly privileged handwritten notes that were disclosed to the respondent, a member of a Police Services Board, in advance of a disciplinary hearing.

The Commission argued the disclosure was inadvertent.

The panel found that while it had jurisdiction to order the return of improperly disclosed documents under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the notes in question were not protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Furthermore, even if they were privileged, the disclosure was not inadvertent because the Commission admitted it did not have a practice of vetting documents for privilege prior to disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, a member of a police services board, brought a motion seeking the recusal of a panel member from his disciplinary hearing.

The applicant argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the panel member had previously adjudicated a disciplinary matter involving the Chief of Police, whose conduct the applicant claimed was factually connected to his own charges.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding no material connection between the two cases that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the panel member lacked an open mind.

The prior decision involved a penalty following a guilty plea and made no findings regarding the applicant.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct and a penalty of demotion arising from an allegation that he referred to his police baton using a racial slur.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to apply the proper legal test for credibility equally to both the appellant and the complainant.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's credibility findings unreasonable as they ignored objective evidence, such as swipe card records, that contradicted the complainant's version of events.

The finding of misconduct was vacated and a finding of not guilty was substituted.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty arising from a suspect apprehension pursuit conducted in an unmarked police vehicle.

The Hearing Officer found that the Appellant breached police procedures but concluded the breach was not wilful, yet still constituted misconduct.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in determining the breach was not wilful.

Given the Appellant's training and the absolute prohibition against using unmarked vehicles in pursuits, the Commission concluded the breach was deliberate and intentional, thereby satisfying the requirement of wilfulness for neglect of duty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of resignation or dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to multiple counts of discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and insubordination.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in fact and failed to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate his generalized anxiety disorder and alcohol dependency.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision reasonable.

The Commission noted the appellant had previously been reinstated under a 'last chance' agreement for similar misconduct and failed to comply with its conditions, concluding the employer had fulfilled its duty to accommodate.

The applicant police officer brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to comply with the 30-day time limit under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant filed his notice of appeal over 60 days after receiving the hearing officer's decision staying the disciplinary proceedings.

The Commission held that the 30-day statutory time limit is mandatory and cannot be extended under the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant, a member of the public, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police constable not guilty of misconduct for an allegedly unlawful or unnecessary arrest.

The appellant had been stopped for an expired license plate and was subsequently arrested for "about to assault" after exiting his vehicle.

The Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and findings of fact.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the arrest was lawful and necessary was reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence, given the officer's perception of threat cues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of neglect of duty.

The respondent had seized the appellant's motorcycle without a warrant and failed to file a report with a Justice of the Peace as required by section 489.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the respondent had a lawful excuse for the failure due to the lack of clear policy from the police service regarding off-premises seizures and the general practice in Ontario at the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that found a police officer not guilty of breach of confidence.

Before the written decision was released, the officer retired from the Ontario Provincial Police.

The retired officer brought a motion challenging the Commission's jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Commission granted the motion, finding that under the Police Services Act, it only has jurisdiction over active police officers.

Because the officer had retired, he was no longer a police officer as defined by the Act, and the Commission therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellant sought to appeal a disciplinary hearing decision that found the respondent police officer not guilty of breach of confidence.

Prior to the release of the written decision, the respondent retired from the Ontario Provincial Police.

The respondent brought a motion challenging the Commission's jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Commission granted the motion, finding that under the Police Services Act, it only has jurisdiction over active police officers, and therefore lacks authority to hear an appeal concerning a retired officer.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act for using unnecessary force and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer found that the appellant had pepper-sprayed a handcuffed prisoner in the back of a police cruiser and subsequently failed to document the use of force in his arrest report or a mandatory Use of Force Report.

On appeal, the Commission held that the Hearing Officer's credibility findings and conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission found no manifest error in the determination that the failure to report the use of pepper spray was deliberate and constituted neglect of duty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for discreditable conduct and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal, arising from a false affidavit she swore regarding a parking ticket.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction because the Notice of Hearing was served more than six months after the investigators had a sufficient body of factual information to support the allegations, violating the mandatory limitation period in s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The convictions and penalty were quashed.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his convictions on three counts of discreditable conduct under the Code of Conduct.

The allegations involved off-duty conduct of a sexual nature, including inappropriate comments, unwanted physical contact, and a historical sexual assault prior to his employment as a police officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility, rejecting his evidence, and applying the standard of clear and convincing evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by an evidentiary foundation and were reasonable in light of the evidence as a whole.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant, an OPP Sergeant, appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The allegations stemmed from an incident where the appellant, while 'on call', left his region to return borrowed equipment and was involved in a motor vehicle collision in an OPP vehicle.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty for failing to notify his supervisor before leaving the region and failing to report the collision in a timely manner.

On appeal, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer failed to address conflicting evidence regarding the duty to notify and credibility issues.

Furthermore, the Commission found that the appellant had reported the collision at the first reasonable opportunity, satisfying the policy requirements.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was revoked.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to serve the notice of appeal on the affected parties within the 30-day limitation period required by the Police Services Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant did not file responding materials or attend the motion hearing.

The Commission found that while the Act itself only explicitly requires service on the Commission within 30 days, the Commission's Rules mandate service on all affected parties within the same timeframe.

Because the appellant failed to comply with the Rules and did not request an extension, the motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failure to comply with the service requirements under subsection 70(1) of the Police Services Act and section 8.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant failed to serve the affected parties with the Notice of Appeal within the 30-day limitation period.

The appellant did not file responding materials or attend the motion hearing to request an extension of time.

The Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to serve the notice of appeal on the affected parties within the 30-day limitation period required by the Police Services Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant served the Commission within the time limit but served the respondents by mail outside the 30-day window.

The Commission found that while the Act itself only explicitly requires service on the Commission within 30 days, the Commission's Rules of Practice mandate service on the affected parties within the same timeframe.

As the appellant failed to comply with the Rules and did not request an extension or attend the motion, the Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting 20-day suspension without pay.

The conviction arose from an incident where the officer stopped a female acquaintance on an isolated road while on duty and made inappropriate sexual comments.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt, concluding that the credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, reducing the suspension to 15 days and ordering the officer to complete a sexual harassment prevention program, noting mitigating factors such as the officer's prior good record and recognition of the gravity of the misconduct.