Orlando Zamprogna

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, 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, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct arising from his arrest of a tow truck operator following a verbal altercation at a breakdown scene.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant acted unprofessionally, failed to communicate effectively, and improperly used his power of arrest after a dispute over towing dispatch.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the Hearing Officer's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellant's conduct in executing the arrest was improper and discreditable.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct arising from his arrest of a tow truck driver for uttering threats.

The Hearing Officer found that the appellant acted unprofessionally, failed to communicate effectively, and improperly used his power of arrest due to a prior history of conflict with the driver.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, holding that the Hearing Officer's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellant's conduct was an abuse of authority that discredited the police service.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting reprimand.

The misconduct arose from an interaction with a tow truck driver, during which the appellant arrested the driver for uttering threats.

The hearing officer found the appellant's conduct unprofessional and an abuse of the power of arrest.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's decision, finding that the hearing officer's credibility assessments were supported by the evidence and that the appellant's actions were improper and discreditable.

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 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, a police sergeant, appealed findings of guilt for four counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit, as well as the penalty of demotion to 3rd class Constable.

The misconduct arose from his failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and his subsequent false statements to an investigating officer.

The Commission upheld the findings of guilt, finding clear and convincing evidence of the misconduct.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the original penalty too severe given the appellant's 22-year unblemished record, and varied the penalty to a demotion to 2nd class Constable for two years.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed findings of guilt for four counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit, as well as the penalty of demotion to 3rd class constable.

The misconduct arose from his failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar, his failure to ensure his subordinate investigated, and his subsequent false statement to an investigating officer.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty to a demotion to 2nd class constable for two years, finding the original penalty unduly emphasized punishment and failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's 22-year unblemished record and potential for rehabilitation.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed findings of guilt for four counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit, as well as the penalty of demotion to 3rd class Constable.

The misconduct arose from his failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and his subsequent false statements to an investigating officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the convictions, finding clear and convincing evidence of the misconduct.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, finding the original demotion too severe given the appellant's 22-year unblemished record.

The penalty was reduced to a demotion to 2nd class Constable for two years.

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 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 findings of guilt on four counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charges stemmed from inappropriate comments and touching of a sexual nature involving four women, including members of the public and an undercover officer.

The Commission set aside one conviction involving a brief physical contact with a civilian volunteer, finding it did not amount to discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission upheld the remaining three convictions, finding the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the appellant's lack of judgment, failure to accept responsibility, poor employment record, and the compelling psychiatric evidence indicating no realistic possibility of rehabilitation.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on four counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charges arose from inappropriate comments and touching of a sexual nature involving four women, including members of the public and an undercover officer.

The Commission set aside one conviction involving a brief physical contact with a civilian volunteer, finding it did not amount to discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission upheld the remaining three convictions, finding the hearing officer's credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's lack of judgment, failure to accept responsibility, and poor rehabilitative prospects.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on four counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charges arose from inappropriate comments and touching of a sexual nature involving four women, including members of the public and an undercover officer.

The Commission set aside one conviction involving a civilian volunteer, finding the brief physical contact did not amount to discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission upheld the remaining three convictions, finding the hearing officer's credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's lack of judgment, failure to accept responsibility, poor employment record, and lack of rehabilitative potential.