Roy B. Conacher

Two police officers appealed their disciplinary convictions for Unlawful or Unnecessary Arrest and Discreditable Conduct, as well as the penalties imposed.

The officers had entered a residence without a warrant to investigate a noise complaint and arrested a youth who was recording them.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the unlawful arrest convictions, finding no hot pursuit justified the warrantless entry.

However, the Commission overturned the discreditable conduct conviction against one officer, finding the hearing officer failed to apply the objective reasonable person test to her use of mild profanity.

The penalties were varied from forfeiture of hours to reprimands and training to align with similar cases.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a reprimand for the superintendent's role in ordering the unlawful arrest and detention of the complainants.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for such unprecedented and highly scrutinized Charter breaches was of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The superintendent had been found guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and discreditable conduct for ordering the 'kettling' and unlawful arrest of protestors, and was penalized with a forfeiture of 30 days off.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for a senior commander in these unprecedented circumstances is of significant importance to the policing profession and the public.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by appearing to reverse the burden of proof, requiring the officer to prove he had reasonable and probable grounds.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to adequately analyze the officer's subjective belief and whether there was good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

Given the excessive delay of over five years, the Commission revoked the finding of misconduct rather than remitting the matter for a new hearing.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, consumed alcohol and a sleeping pill before driving his personal vehicle, rear-ending another vehicle, and failing to remain at the scene.

He was subsequently arrested for impaired driving and pleaded guilty to a Highway Traffic Act charge of failing to remain, as well as a disciplinary charge of discreditable conduct.

The Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of demotion from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for 16 months.

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 weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the serious nature of the misconduct and the need for deterrence, and that the penalty was reasonable.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a penalty of 80 hours forfeiture imposed after being found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to properly maintain his police notebooks over a 29-month period.

The appellant argued the hearing officer was biased, misconstrued facts, and imposed a harsh and excessive penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and appropriately considered all relevant sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the public interest.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to five charges of misconduct, including insubordination and discreditable conduct, arising from over 150 unauthorized CPIC and PIP searches and inappropriate use of police equipment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review to the Hearing Officer's decision.

The Commission found no manifest errors, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the evidence, assessed credibility, and applied appropriate sentencing principles.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of 160 hours forfeiture and mandatory alcohol treatment following a guilty plea to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved off-duty belligerence and profane language towards investigating OPP officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by failing to provide a logical and intelligible analysis of the evidence regarding the appellant's alcohol consumption, ignoring evidence favourable to the appellant.

The Commission revoked the original penalty, finding it harsh and excessive, and substituted a penalty of 80 hours forfeiture while quashing the order for alcohol treatment.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for a minimum of one year, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The charges stemmed from an off-duty assault on his child and the improper retention and storage of police property and documents over a 14-year period.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer properly weighed the mitigating factors, including the officer's exemplary employment history, against the seriousness and repetitive nature of the misconduct.

The penalty was deemed reasonable and consistent with similar cases.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after being found guilty of neglect of duty and deceit.

The officer had feigned and exaggerated injuries from an on-duty motorcycle accident to evade work and collect WSIB benefits, which was exposed by surveillance video showing him engaging in strenuous physical activities.

The appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh character evidence on appeal, which the Commission dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

On the main appeal, the Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Williams sentencing factors.

The Commission agreed that the officer's repeated deceit and breach of trust constituted serious misconduct akin to theft of time, irreparably damaging his credibility and the reputation of the police service, justifying the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant, a police officer with 31 years of unblemished service, appealed a penalty of 40 hours forfeiture imposed by a Hearing Officer for discreditable conduct.

The officer had pled guilty to failing to report an off-duty minor motor vehicle accident.

The parties had presented a joint submission recommending a 20-hour forfeiture, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of a harsher penalty.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred by relying on information not in evidence, mischaracterizing the misconduct by referencing an abandoned Criminal Code charge, and failing to provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the joint submission.

The penalty was varied to the jointly recommended 20 hours.