Peter J. Doucet

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a disciplinary penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct related to cocaine possession and use.

The Hearing Officer had rejected a joint submission on penalty that proposed a 'last chance' agreement involving demotion and strict conditions, citing concerns about the officer's credibility and the source of the drugs.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the officer's cocaine addiction as a handicap requiring accommodation, and relied on speculative conclusions unsupported by evidence.

The penalty was varied to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant, a police officer with 16 years of service, appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer following his guilty plea to two counts of discreditable conduct related to cocaine possession and use.

The misconduct occurred while the appellant was working as an undercover drug operative and suffering from an addiction.

At the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor and defence presented a joint submission proposing a 'last chance agreement' with strict conditions, including demotion and drug testing, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the appellant's addiction as a handicap requiring accommodation, relied on speculative conclusions unsupported by evidence, and imposed an unduly harsh penalty.

The Commission varied the penalty to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, developed a cocaine addiction and was criminally convicted of simple possession.

He pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

At the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor and defence presented a joint submission proposing a 'last chance' agreement with strict conditions, including demotion and drug testing.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission and ordered the appellant to resign or be dismissed.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred by relying on speculative conclusions and failing to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate the appellant's addiction.

The Commission varied the penalty to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision imposing a forfeiture of 20 days or 160 hours of pay for neglect of duty in relation to a fatal accident investigation.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made several manifest errors, including imposing a penalty not authorized by the Police Services Act, considering uncharged allegations, misapplying sentencing principles, and failing to consider the systemic lack of support provided to the officer.

The appeal was allowed and the penalty was reduced to a forfeiture of 6 days or 48 hours off.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of forfeiture of 20 days' pay imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to neglect of duty regarding a fatal accident investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction under section 68(1) of the Police Services Act by imposing a penalty not enumerated in the statute, and made numerous errors in applying sentencing principles.

The Commission substituted a penalty of forfeiture of six days or 48 hours off, noting the systemic failures and lack of supervision that contributed to the officer's neglect.

The appellant, a police officer, faced disciplinary charges for discreditable conduct related to a fire in a property room.

He brought preliminary motions before the Hearing Officer to dismiss the charges for failing to meet the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the motions.

The appellant appealed these preliminary rulings to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 70(1) of the Act.

The Commission held that its jurisdiction under section 70(1) is limited to appeals of final orders.

Because the Hearing Officer's rulings did not finally dispose of the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, they were interlocutory.

Consequently, the appeal was deemed premature and dismissed, and the disciplinary hearing was directed to proceed.

The appellant police officer sought to appeal two preliminary rulings by a Hearing Officer that denied his motions to dismiss disciplinary charges for failing to meet the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that its jurisdiction under section 70(1) of the Act is limited to appeals of final decisions.

Because the Hearing Officer's rulings did not finally dispose of the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, they were interlocutory.

The appeal was dismissed as premature.

The appellant police officer sought to appeal two preliminary rulings by a Hearing Officer that denied his motions to dismiss a disciplinary charge for allegedly failing to meet the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission held that its jurisdiction under section 70(1) of the Act is limited to appeals of final orders.

Because the Hearing Officer's rulings did not finally dispose of the disciplinary allegations against the appellant, they were interlocutory.

The appeal was dismissed as premature, and the disciplinary hearing was directed to proceed.

The appellant, a civilian, and the respondent, a police sergeant, both appealed a disciplinary decision.

The sergeant had been found guilty of neglect of duty for denying the civilian his right to counsel for approximately 90 minutes after holding him incommunicado for over 27 hours due to officer safety concerns during a raid.

The Commission upheld the finding of misconduct, agreeing that the Charter violation began when the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed the civilian's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter violation, and substituted a penalty of reduction in rank for six months.

The appellant, Fred Parker, and the respondent, Sergeant Randy Blakely, both appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding Sergeant Blakely guilty of neglect of duty for denying Mr. Parker his right to counsel for approximately 90 minutes.

Mr. Parker was held incommunicado for over 27 hours following his arrest due to officer safety concerns during a related police raid.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the Charter breach began only when the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed Mr. Parker's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter violation, and substituted a penalty of reduction in rank for six months.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary decision finding the respondent police sergeant guilty of neglect of duty for denying the appellant his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The respondent had held the appellant incommunicado for over 27 hours due to officer safety concerns during a raid on a dangerous crime family's property.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the Charter breach began only after the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed the appellant's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter breach, and increased the penalty to a reduction in rank for six months.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of insubordination.

While suspended with pay due to criminal charges, he was prohibited from entering police property.

He attended a police division to retrieve videotape disclosure for his criminal defence, arguing he had an honest and mistaken belief he was allowed to do so.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding it was unreasonable for the appellant to unilaterally decide the prohibition did not apply without making inquiries.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer was suspended from duty with pay following a criminal charge, with a condition prohibiting him from entering police property.

While suspended, he entered the police station to retrieve videotape disclosure for his criminal defence, leading to a disciplinary conviction for insubordination.

On appeal, he argued the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider his defence of lawful excuse or honest and mistaken belief.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest and overriding error in the Hearing Officer's rejection of the defence, as the appellant's unilateral decision to enter the property without inquiring with authority was unreasonable.

The appellant police officer was suspended from duty with pay following a criminal charge, with a condition prohibiting him from entering police property.

He subsequently entered a police division to retrieve videotape disclosure for his criminal defence, leading to a disciplinary conviction for insubordination.

On appeal, he argued the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider his defence of lawful excuse or honest and mistaken belief.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest and overriding error in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the appellant's belief was unreasonable.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of nine days (72 hours) imposed following a guilty plea to one count of insubordination under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from a public complaint that the officer improperly accessed CPIC information and released it to his father.

The appellant argued that the hearing officer erred procedurally by going beyond the agreed statement of facts and accepting unsworn victim impact statements from the complainant.

The Commission found no error in principle and held that the hearing officer had authority under section 15 of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act to receive the statements.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a nine-day penalty imposed following a guilty plea to insubordination for improperly accessing CPIC information and releasing it to his father.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred procedurally by accepting unsworn victim impact statements and going beyond the agreed statement of fact.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty was within the appropriate range and the Hearing Officer had authority under section 15 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act to receive the statements, though noting a preference for sworn evidence in quasi-judicial hearings.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of nine days' forfeiture of pay imposed after he pleaded guilty to insubordination under the Police Services Act for improperly accessing CPIC information and releasing it to his father.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred procedurally by going beyond the agreed statement of facts and by receiving unsworn victim impact statements from the complainant and his wife.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was within the appropriate range and that the Hearing Officer had the authority under section 15 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act to receive the statements, although the Commission noted that evidence should normally be taken under oath.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct for intentionally making numerous harassing phone calls to a fellow officer.

The calls consisted of background noise and were made from the appellant's cell phone using a speed dial key.

The appellant argued the calls were accidental.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that it could not interfere with the Hearing Officer's decision unless it lacked an evidentiary foundation or contained a manifest error in principle.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer carefully analyzed the evidence, including expert testimony on accidental activation, and reasonably concluded that the calls were intentional.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for allegedly making numerous harassing phone calls to a fellow officer.

The calls consisted of background noise and were made from the appellant's cell phone, which had the complainant's number programmed on speed dial.

The appellant argued the calls were accidental.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision to reject the accidental activation defence was supported by the evidence and contained no manifest error in principle.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making numerous harassing phone calls to a colleague.

The appellant argued the calls were accidentally made by his cell phone's speed dial function.

The Hearing Officer rejected the accidental activation defence and found the calls were intentional.

On appeal, the Commission held that its role was restricted to determining if the decision lacked evidentiary foundation or contained a manifest error in principle.

Finding neither, the Commission deferred to the Hearing Officer and dismissed the appeal.