Peter Doucet

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The misconduct involved the misappropriation of over $4,000 in public funds through false expense claims and forged receipts for personal vehicle repairs.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty, concluding that the deliberate and protracted nature of the misconduct, combined with a lack of remorse and restitution, justified dismissal.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The charges related to the misappropriation of public funds through the misuse of police-issued credit cards for personal motorcycle repairs, submitting false receipts for vehicle repairs, and failing to account for cash requisitioned for an informant.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the serious breach of public trust, lack of restitution, and absence of significant mitigating factors.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The misconduct involved the misappropriation of over $4,000 in public funds through the improper use of service credit cards for personal motorcycle repairs, submitting false receipts for vehicle repairs, and failing to account for cash requisitioned for an informant.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the protracted and premeditated nature of the misconduct, the breach of public trust, and the absence of significant mitigating factors.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of discreditable conduct and corrupt practice relating to the theft of $650 in seized funds and an assault.

The Hearing Officer had relied heavily on a secretly recorded conversation in which the appellant admitted to taking the money, rejecting the appellant's explanations as evasive and incredible.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer had a clear and convincing evidentiary foundation for his credibility assessments and findings of guilt.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and corrupt practice under the Police Services Act for taking $650 in evidence money and assaulting a civilian.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility, particularly regarding a secretly recorded conversation where the appellant admitted to taking the money.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer had a clear and convincing evidentiary foundation to believe the civilian witness over the appellant, whose explanations for the recorded admissions were deemed incredible.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and corrupt practice relating to the theft of $650 in evidence money and an assault on a civilian.

The civilian had secretly recorded a conversation in which the appellant admitted to taking the money.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer had a clear and convincing evidentiary foundation to believe the civilian's testimony and the recorded admissions over the appellant's evasive explanations.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police constable not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged the constable failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into a domestic dispute, citing the constable's prior acquaintance with a witness and failure to interview a nanny.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's conclusions that the constable had reasonable grounds to arrest the appellant under the existing domestic violence policy and that the threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias was not met.

The appellant appealed a decision finding Constable Kelly not guilty of neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The appellant alleged that Constable Kelly failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into a domestic dispute because he was an acquaintance of the appellant's ex-wife's new partner.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding no manifest error in the conclusion that Constable Kelly's actions did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of neglect of duty, and that the threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias was not met.

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

The appellant alleged the officer failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into a domestic dispute, citing the officer's prior acquaintance with a witness and failure to interview a nanny.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, concluding there was no manifest error in finding the officer's actions did not constitute neglect of duty and that the threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias was not met.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest for public intoxication.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the finding of misconduct, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the suspension from 12 days to 4 days because the Hearing Officer improperly considered disciplinary matters that postdated the offence.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest for public intoxication, and the resulting penalty of a 12-day suspension.

The appellant also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Hearing Officer subsequently accepted a position at the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

The Commission dismissed the bias claim and upheld the misconduct finding, concluding it was supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred by considering post-offence disciplinary matters.

The penalty was reduced to a 4-day suspension.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest for public intoxication, and the resulting penalty of a 12-day suspension.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the finding of misconduct, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias regarding the Hearing Officer's subsequent employment at OCCPS, and concluding the misconduct finding was supported by evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred by considering post-offence disciplinary matters.

The penalty was reduced to a 4-day suspension.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for misconduct (insubordination) for failing to attend court.

The officer had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at the same time.

He attended the medical bureau and forgot to attend court due to the excitement of potentially returning to work.

The Hearing Officer accepted his evidence but found it did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, holding that an honest mistake in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse, and set aside the finding of guilt.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for misconduct (insubordination) for failing to attend court.

The officer had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at overlapping times.

He attended the medical bureau and forgot to attend court due to the excitement of potentially returning to work.

The Hearing Officer accepted his evidence but found forgetfulness was not a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, holding that an honest mistake in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination under the Police Services Act and Code of Conduct for failing to attend court.

The appellant had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at overlapping times.

The hearing officer accepted the appellant's evidence that he simply forgot to attend court due to the excitement of being at the medical bureau and hoping to return to work, but concluded this did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, applying Divisional Court precedent that an honest mistake can provide an answer to the charge.

The Commission found that the appellant's forgetfulness in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse and set aside the finding of guilt.