Raymond G. Leclair

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions and penalties for neglect of duty, discreditable conduct, and deceit arising from his unauthorized investigation into alleged illegal recordings at a fire station.

The officer failed to report his investigation to superiors, kept unauthorized notes, seized equipment without a warrant, and counselled a witness to lie.

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

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, concluding that the officer's actions, particularly counselling a witness to lie and failing to report sensitive information, demonstrated a severe lack of judgment and irreparably damaged his credibility and the reputation of the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for insubordination after leaving his issued firearm in an insecure locker.

The officer argued the offence was one of strict liability and he had no intention to leave the locker open, blaming the quality of the lock.

The Commission agreed it was a strict liability offence but found the officer failed to exercise reasonable care by not double-checking the lock.

The Commission also dismissed an allegation of bias regarding the prosecutor's promotion to Chief of Police and upheld the penalty of 24 hours forfeiture of time off as consistent with similar cases.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding her guilty of misconduct for leaving her service firearm unattended in an open locker, for which she was ordered dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence that the locker was left unsecured.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty.

Relying on uncontradicted medical evidence that the appellant suffered from depression and stress-related cognitive impairments, the Commission found that the employer failed in its duty to accommodate her treatable mental disability.

The penalty of dismissal was reduced to a demotion to 4th Class Constable for a twelve-month period to allow for rehabilitation and supported supervision.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct arising from an off-duty assault on a contractor he believed had stolen his rings.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the penalty and found that the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to significant mitigating factors, including the appellant's unblemished ten-year service record, his acceptance of responsibility, his pursuit of counselling, and the victim's forgiveness.

The Commission varied the penalty from dismissal to a one-year demotion to fourth class constable.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was found guilty of discreditable conduct for leaving a store with unpaid merchandise and was dismissed from the police service.

He appealed the conviction and penalty.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding no reason to interfere with the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and intent.

However, the Commission found the penalty of dismissal excessive, as the Hearing Officer failed to consider mitigating factors such as the appellant's guilty plea, unblemished record, and likelihood of rehabilitation.

The penalty was reduced to a reduction in rank for one year.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for two counts of neglect of duty (sleeping on duty and failing to respond to a break-in) and one count of deceit, as well as the penalties imposed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the Hearing Officer's reasons were inadequate, the evidence on record met the clear and convincing standard to support the convictions.

The Commission upheld the convictions but varied the penalties, reducing the indefinite demotion to a fixed six-month period and reducing the forfeiture of pay for deceit from 40 hours to 16 hours.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for deceit and insubordination, and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of two days off.

The deceit charge arose from false notebook entries concealing a visit to a chiropractor while on duty.

The insubordination charge arose from the officer's failure to submit a written report regarding equipment found in his locker while he was suspended.

The Commission upheld both convictions, finding the notebook entries were inaccurate and misleading, and that a suspended officer remains obligated to comply with lawful orders from superiors.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion to Third Class Constable.

The conviction arose from an off-duty incident where the appellant, while intoxicated, pointed his service firearm at another officer.

The Commission dismissed a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence, applying the Palmer test.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the adjudicator's credibility findings, which preferred the evidence of a civilian witness over the appellant's testimony.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, finding the appellant's careless disregard for firearms training and policies to be a serious breach incompatible with police duties.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved the officer pointing his loaded service revolver at his partner and himself while intoxicated off-duty.

The Commission dismissed a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence, applying the Palmer test.

The Commission upheld the adjudicator's credibility findings and conviction, noting the evidence was clear and convincing.

The penalty of dismissal was also upheld, as the officer's reckless mishandling of a firearm while intoxicated demonstrated a flagrant lack of judgment and abuse of power, justifying termination despite his previous good record.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty of 30 hours' forfeited pay for wilfully or carelessly destroying a police service document.

The officer had shredded a memo addressed to him, believing it was his personal copy, though the respondent argued it was the official copy for his performance file.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the officer acted reasonably in assuming the unmarked memo was his to dispose of, and set aside the conviction and penalty.

The Smiths Falls Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to terminate a fourth-class constable to reduce the size of the police force.

The Board argued the officer was hired as a temporary replacement and was no longer needed.

The Smiths Falls Police Association opposed the termination, arguing the force was already understaffed and the community suffered from a high crime rate and excessive officer overtime.

The Commission found the officer was a permanent employee and denied consent for the termination, concluding the Board failed to demonstrate that the reduction would not impair the provision of adequate and effective police services in the municipality.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of forfeiture of four days off for careless damage to equipment.

The officer had driven his cruiser onto a wet grass field while pursuing youths, skidded, and struck a light pole.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the officer failed to maintain control of the vehicle and exhibited careless behaviour.

The Commission also rejected the argument that the charge violated principles of progressive discipline, noting the officer's prior driving-related conduct reports.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for neglect of duty arising from his delegation of duties during an underwater search and rescue re-qualification course.

The prosecution alleged he improperly delegated his duties and failed to report that a diver had not re-qualified due to illness.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding no clear and convincing evidence that the appellant could not delegate his duties to a qualified subordinate, as authorized by Police Orders.

The Commission noted the prosecution appeared to be an unwarranted use of the disciplinary process.

The appellant police officer was dismissed after being convicted of criminal charges related to off-duty domestic assaults.

He appealed the disciplinary decision to the Commission.

Before the disciplinary appeal was heard, the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed his criminal convictions and ordered a new trial, but the Crown elected not to proceed.

The parties reached an agreement to reinstate the appellant, which the Commission accepted.

The Commission noted that disciplinary proceedings need not be stayed pending a criminal appeal, and that off-duty criminal conduct is not inherently less serious than on-duty conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of discreditable conduct and penalties of resignation or dismissal arising from two off-duty incidents involving alcohol and drugs.

The Commission reduced the penalty for the first charge (impaired driving) to a forfeiture of twenty days off, noting the Force's principle that alcoholism is a treatable disease.

On the second charge (involvement with crack cocaine), the Commission upheld the finding of guilt based on the officer's presence and participation in a drug scene, but found no clear evidence that he actually used the drug.

The penalty for the second charge was reduced to a demotion to Fourth Class Constable for one year, subject to strict conditions including participation in Alcoholics Anonymous.

Two police officers appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of forfeiting two days off.

The officers had obtained a judge's order to transport a prisoner to police headquarters but instead took him to a restaurant to meet his wife, an undercover participant, to build rapport with the informant.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officers breached a court order, although the deviation was minor and understandable in the context of intelligence gathering.

The Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, quashing the forfeiture of days off and substituting a reprimand.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

While off duty, the appellant was stopped and found to be driving with an expired validation tag, an expired driver's licence, and an expired insurance certificate.

The appellant argued that he should be treated like any other citizen for regulatory offences and that discreditable conduct should be reserved for more serious issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the public expects police officers to adhere to the laws they enforce, and driving with multiple expired documents fell below that standard.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct and neglect of duty arising from a sexual relationship with a female member of the public.

He argued that the charges were duplicitous, lacked sufficient evidence, were vague as to time, and that the presiding officer's reasons lacked particulars.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charges were distinct, the evidence supported the likelihood of bringing discredit to the police force, the appellant knew the case he had to meet, and the presiding officer's credibility findings were reasonable.

The Commission also upheld the penalties imposed, including a reduction in rank.

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after using excessive corporal punishment on his son, who suffered from severe behavioural issues.

He was subsequently charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered to resign or be dismissed.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission considered the officer's 14-year unblemished record, his sincere efforts to manage a difficult child, and the exceptional circumstances of the case.

The Commission concluded that dismissal was too severe and reduced the penalty to a reduction in rank for 12 months.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the penalty of a loss of five days' leave.

The officer had supplied cases of beer to a civilian on Sundays through the back door of a restaurant owned by his wife.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the adjudicator's finding that the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force, rejecting the argument that it was merely an exchange among friends.

The Commission also confirmed the penalty, noting the application of progressive discipline given a prior conviction for discreditable conduct.