Peter J. Doucet

The applicant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police discipline proceedings against the respondent officer.

The Commission dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the refusal to amend the charge, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals of interlocutory orders.

The Commission found that leave was not required to appeal the misconduct finding, as it could be appealed as of right.

Finally, the Commission granted leave to appeal the penalty decision (a reprimand), establishing a three-part test for granting leave under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act and finding that the Charter issues raised were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The applicant complainant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police discipline proceedings against the respondent officer.

The Commission held it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an interlocutory decision refusing to amend the notice of charge.

It further held that the applicant's appeal of the misconduct finding did not require leave, as it proceeded as of right under s. 70(3) of the Police Services Act.

Finally, the Commission established a three-part test for granting leave to appeal a penalty decision under s. 70(4) and granted leave, finding that the appropriate penalty for breaches of fundamental Charter rights is a matter of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The applicant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police misconduct.

The Commission denied leave to appeal the interlocutory decision refusing to amend the charge, finding jurisdiction only extends to final orders.

The Commission found no leave was required to appeal the misconduct finding, as it proceeds as of right.

Finally, the Commission established a three-part test for granting a complainant leave to appeal a penalty decision under s. 70(4) of the Police Services Act, and granted leave on the basis that the underlying Charter breaches were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The appellant police officer appealed an interlocutory decision of a Hearing Officer requiring him to elect whether to call evidence before ruling on a motion for non-suit in a disciplinary hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that its jurisdiction under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act is restricted to appeals of final orders.

The Commission also provided guidance that the procedure for motions for non-suit in administrative proceedings conforms with civil court practice, requiring the defendant to elect whether to call evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed an interlocutory ruling by a Hearing Officer in a disciplinary proceeding.

The Hearing Officer had required the appellant to elect whether to call evidence before ruling on a motion for non-suit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that its appellate jurisdiction under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act is restricted to final orders.

The Commission also provided guidance that motions for non-suit in administrative proceedings should follow the civil procedure requiring a defendant to elect whether to call evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed an interlocutory ruling made by a Hearing Officer during a disciplinary hearing.

The Hearing Officer had ruled that the appellant must elect whether to call evidence before a motion for non-suit could be decided.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal as premature, holding that under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act, it only has jurisdiction to hear appeals of final decisions, not interlocutory procedural rulings.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for deceit under the Police Services Act after providing a false statement regarding a single-vehicle collision involving his police cruiser.

The appellant argued the Hearings Officer erred in discounting expert psychological evidence suggesting his memory was impaired.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the expert's theory of memory contamination unsupported by the evidence and upholding the Hearings Officer's conclusion that the appellant was deceitful.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for tampering with evidence and failing to lay appropriate charges.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for deceit under the Police Services Act.

The conviction arose from a false statement he gave to an investigating officer after he crashed his police cruiser into a bridge.

The appellant claimed he had left his roof lights on from an earlier traffic stop, but civilian witnesses confirmed he activated them just before the crash.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearings Officer erred by discounting expert psychological evidence suggesting memory impairment.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was beyond the expert's expertise and unsupported by the facts.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for failing to properly investigate the collision and tampering with evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The conviction arose after the appellant crashed his police cruiser and subsequently provided a false statement to the investigating officer, claiming he had left his roof lights on from an earlier traffic stop.

At the hearing, the appellant called a psychologist to suggest his memory was impaired, but the Hearings Officer rejected this evidence and found the appellant was deceitful.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearings Officer's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the psychological theory of memory contamination was unfounded.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for tampering with evidence and failing to lay appropriate charges.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from first class to second class constable for six months, imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct stemmed from forging his wife's signature on loan documents, for which he received an absolute discharge in criminal court.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer made no manifest error in principle and that the penalty was well within the appropriate range given the deliberate nature of the two acts of forgery.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from first class to second class constable for six months, imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of misconduct for forging his wife's signature on loan documents.

He had received an absolute discharge in criminal court.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer made no manifest errors in principle and that the penalty was well within the appropriate range given the two deliberate acts of forgery.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from first class constable to second class constable for six months, imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of misconduct for forging his wife's signature on loan documents.

He had previously received an absolute discharge for the related criminal offences.

The Commission found that the hearing officer did not commit a manifest error in principle and that the penalty was not clearly or manifestly excessive, given the two deliberate acts of forgery.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed, arguing the disciplinary hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that the Hearing Officer should have accepted his alternate version of events.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or in the penalty of dismissal, noting the Crown had not requested a stay of the disciplinary proceedings.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The appellant appealed the disciplinary conviction and penalty, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to stay the proceedings absent a Crown request, and holding that the Hearing Officer properly relied on the criminal conviction without re-litigating the facts.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as there was no manifest error in principle.

The appellant, a 20-year veteran police officer, appealed his convictions for misconduct related to showing a scrotum piercing to a colleague and placing a dead cat on another colleague's vehicle, as well as the penalty of dismissal imposed for nine incidents of careless handling of his service firearm.

The Commission upheld the conviction regarding the piercing, finding it brought discredit to the police service.

The Commission overturned the conviction regarding the dead cat, finding the matter had been properly resolved informally.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal for the firearm incidents, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of repeated, unprovoked gunplay by a police officer.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for two counts of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal for a third count (careless handling of a firearm).

The Commission upheld the conviction for showing a scrotum piercing to a colleague, finding it brought discredit to the police service.

The Commission allowed the appeal on the second count (placing a dead cat on a colleague's vehicle) because the matter had been properly resolved through informal resolution.

The Commission upheld the penalty of resignation or dismissal for the firearm charge, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of nine separate incidents of pointing or pressing a service weapon against colleagues.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for two counts of discreditable conduct and the penalty of dismissal imposed for a third count of careless handling of a firearm.

The Commission upheld the conviction for showing a scrotum piercing to a colleague, finding it brought discredit to the police service.

However, the Commission overturned the conviction regarding a practical joke involving a dead cat, as the matter had been properly addressed through informal resolution.

The Commission upheld the penalty of resignation or dismissal for the firearm charge, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of nine separate incidents of pointing or mishandling a service weapon.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct under the Police Services Act arising from allegations of sexual assault and attempted murder while off-duty in the Dominican Republic.

The Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error in accepting the complainant's uncorroborated evidence.

The Commission concluded that the complainant's testimony was incredible, inconsistent, and unsupported by a proper investigation, meaning the charges were not proven on clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing his application to stay disciplinary proceedings for discreditable conduct.

The appellant argued the proceedings were commenced outside the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

Following the hearing officer's decision, the appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to a reduced charge.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding it was brought outside the 30-day appeal period under s. 70(1) of the Act, which began running from the date of the hearing officer's decision, not the ultimate disposition.

Furthermore, the negotiated plea constituted a waiver of the right to appeal.

In obiter, the Commission noted that had the appeal been timely, it would have found the hearing officer erred in law regarding the commencement of the limitation period.