Raymond J. Silenzi

The appellant police officer pled guilty to neglect of duty and discreditable conduct after leaving his shift without permission to visit a casino.

At the disciplinary hearing, a joint submission proposed a penalty of 60 hours loss of leave.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission without providing reasons and imposed a demotion in rank, which was upheld by the Board.

On appeal, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer and the Board erred by failing to provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the joint submission.

Given the appellant's clear record and mitigating factors, the Commission set aside the demotions and imposed the jointly submitted penalty of 60 hours loss of leave.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal, which arose from his use of excessive force in disciplining his infant children.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the hearing officer did not err in admitting hearsay statements from the appellant's wife or in concluding there was clear and convincing evidence of misconduct.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding that the hearing officer erred in applying precedent without establishing the requisite elements for dismissal.

Noting the appellant's successful rehabilitation efforts and the absence of any attempt to subvert justice, the Commission reduced the penalty from dismissal to a reduction in rank to Second Class Constable.

The appellant, a police officer, pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct after submitting improper receipts to his insurance company following a fire, resulting in an overpayment.

He was convicted of fraud under $5,000 in criminal court and granted an absolute discharge.

The Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of demotion to Fourth Class Constable for one year.

The appellant appealed the penalty, arguing it was harsh and excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the officer's rehabilitative potential, and that there was no manifest error in principle in the penalty imposed.

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 conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had engaged in off-duty secondary employment acting as an escort for a member of the public without seeking permission or disclosing the potential conflict of interest.

The Commission found that while the Hearing Officer's reasons were deficient and an off-the-record discussion with the prosecutor was imprudent, there was clear and convincing evidence of discreditable conduct based on the undisputed facts.

However, the Commission found the penalty of dismissal to be excessive, as this was the officer's first disciplinary infraction chronologically, and reduced the penalty to a demotion to Third Class Constable for one year.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and a penalty of five days without pay.

The charge arose from allegations of sexual harassment involving off-duty physical contact with another officer over a two-and-a-half-year period.

The Commission found that the adjudicator erred in linking the off-duty activities to the workplace to conclude the environment was poisoned.

The Commission held that the private, off-duty conduct between consenting adults did not bring discredit upon the police service.

Furthermore, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that the appellant knew or ought to have known the conduct was unwelcome.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and penalty were quashed.

The applicant police association applied under section 116 of the Police Services Act to determine whether seven individuals in five positions (Licencing Enforcement Officer, Licencing Clerk, Board Clerk, Confidential Board Secretary, and Board Manager) were members of the police force.

The Commission held that the board's power to contract under section 30(1) allows it to directly employ individuals for clerical, secretarial, and administrative functions relating to its governance duties.

Therefore, the Board Clerk and Confidential Secretary are not members of the police force.

However, by-law enforcement functions must be performed by members of the police force under the operational direction of the chief of police.

Thus, the Licencing Enforcement Officers and Licencing Clerk must be members of the police force, and the Board Manager must also be a member unless the by-law enforcement responsibilities are divested.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct based on three criminal convictions for assault.

The assaults occurred prior to his employment as a police officer.

The appellant argued the hearing officer relied on evidence not presented at the hearing and applied personal bias regarding spousal abuse.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer properly considered objective factors and that the appellant's numerous criminal convictions severely impaired his credibility and ability to carry out the duties of a police officer, justifying dismissal.

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 Towns of Bradford West Gwillimbury and Innisfil applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for approval to amalgamate their respective police services into the South Simcoe Police Service.

The Commission reviewed the comprehensive proposal and agreement, which detailed cost-sharing, personnel deployment, and operational restructuring.

Finding that the agreement met the requirements of the Police Services Act and had strong community and municipal support, the Commission approved the amalgamation, though it cautioned against the creation of an 'interim' board not authorized by the Act.