Reva Gerstein

The appellant, a police constable, appealed his penalty of dismissal for discreditable conduct under the Police Act.

The charge arose after he was convicted of common assault following an altercation with a York Regional Police officer while attempting to retrieve property from his separated wife's residence.

The appellant argued against dismissal based on progressive discipline, the gap effect, and emotional stress from his marriage breakdown.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, noting the appellant's extensive prior disciplinary record, his refusal to accept psychiatric help, and his lack of remorse.

The Commission concluded that the appellant's pattern of behaviour and his actions in taking the law into his own hands rendered him incapable of continuing effectively as a police officer.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed his penalty of dismissal for discreditable conduct following a criminal conviction for common assault against another police officer.

The assault occurred during a domestic dispute when the appellant attempted to seize property from his separated wife's residence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the dismissal, noting the appellant's extensive prior disciplinary record, his refusal to accept medical or psychological help, and his inability to carry on effectively as a police officer given the high standard of conduct required.

The appellant, a police officer with 21 years of unblemished service, appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct.

While off duty, the appellant was observed switching price tags on a stereo at a retail store, resulting in him paying a lower price.

He was subsequently convicted of fraud under the Criminal Code and received a conditional discharge.

At the disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty and ordered to resign or be dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding the appellant's actions were intentional and out of character.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, concluding that dismissal was too severe given the appellant's long, unblemished record and strong community support.

The penalty was varied to a loss of 20 days' pay.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for major and minor insubordination.

The major charge related to transporting a prisoner and a complainant in the rear of a police cruiser without a screen, contrary to administrative procedure.

The minor charge related to eating a pear while in uniform in a public place.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal on both charges.

The Commission found the transportation procedure was unclear for the specific circumstances, making the officer's conduct reasonable.

Regarding the minor charge, while the strict regulation against eating in uniform remained valid, the Commission allowed the appeal because the regulation was outdated, modified by practice, and an improper penalty of a reprimand had been imposed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his alleged association with a known criminal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the charge sheet was sufficiently particularized and the evidence established an association between the appellant and the individual, the prosecution failed to prove that the individual was a 'known criminal' at the relevant time.

The Commission held that the appellant's failure to run a CPIC check did not amount to wilful blindness.

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