Roy B. Conacher, Q.C.

The appellant, a police officer, was transferred and had 200 hours removed from his vacation bank after an investigation into unapproved overtime.

The respondent conceded the transfers were disciplinary but had not held a hearing under the Police Services Act.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction over disguised discipline despite the lack of a first instance hearing.

It directed the Commissioner of the OPP to hold a hearing regarding the transfers, but held that the vacation bank dispute was a payroll matter to be resolved through the collective agreement grievance process.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination, discreditable conduct, and deceit, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from the appellant's failure to assist two members of the public with criminal record checks outside regular business hours, contrary to orders, and his subsequent deceit to a supervisor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the findings of misconduct, finding the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments reasonable.

However, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the appellant twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and failing to apply the Kienapple principle.

The penalty was varied from an 18-month demotion to a forfeiture of 40 hours.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision requiring her to resign or face termination after she pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting fraudulent health benefit claims.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh, excessive, and inconsistent with similar cases where officers were demoted rather than dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the usefulness test, the officer's short tenure, and the severity of the repetitive fraud.

A dissenting member would have substituted a penalty of demotion based on consistency with prior disciplinary cases.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of misconduct for allegedly using unnecessary force by kicking a handcuffed suspect.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the evidence and found that the Hearing Officer failed to make a definitive finding on whether the appellant actually kicked the suspect as alleged in the Statement of Particulars.

Concluding that the evidence did not meet the required standard of clear and convincing proof, the Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision and dismissed the charge.

The Midland Police Services Board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to reduce its civilian staff by terminating eight civilian radio operators and outsourcing dispatch and communications services to the Owen Sound Police Service.

The Commission held a public meeting to hear from the Board, the Midland Police Association, affected employees, and the public.

The Commission found that the proposed outsourcing would maintain adequate and effective policing in Midland, noting the modern facilities and successful track record of the Owen Sound communications centre.

As the parties reached a settlement regarding severance for the affected employees, the Commission consented to the application.

At the beginning of an appeal hearing, the appellant police officer filed a second Notice of Appeal.

After discussion with counsel, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission ordered that the two appeals be heard together pursuant to Rule 3.3 of its Rules of Practice.

The Commission set a schedule for the delivery of factums, records, and supporting materials, and scheduled the joint hearing.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that found him guilty of unsatisfactory work performance and ordered his resignation or dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and ordered his reinstatement.

The Commission found that the Ottawa Police Service failed to strictly comply with its own performance review policies and the mandatory pre-conditions set out in section 29(3) of O. Reg. 268/10 before initiating the chief's complaint.

The hearing officer committed manifest errors of law by finding that substantial compliance was sufficient and that he had discretion to interpret the established procedures, as well as errors of fact by ignoring material evidence favourable to the appellant.

Two police officers appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest without good and sufficient cause.

The officers had arrested a driver leaving a laneway near a suspected drug dealer's residence without observing any drug transaction or confirming the driver's identity.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's reasons were adequate in the administrative law context and that the officers lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision imposing a demotion in rank for assisting another officer in cheating on three separate promotional examinations using electronic communication equipment.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended the evidence regarding her motivation, failed to properly weigh case law, and imposed a harsh and excessive penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, transparent, and fell within the acceptable range of outcomes for the serious misconduct committed.

The City of Pembroke applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to disband the Pembroke Police Service and contract policing services to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission found that the proposed OPP Integrated Detachment model would provide adequate and effective police services to the municipality.

The Commission granted consent to abolish the municipal police service, subject to the condition that if severance agreements with the affected employees are not reached within 90 days, the matters will proceed to arbitration.

The Corporation of the Town of Perth applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to disband the Perth Police Service and transition to an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Integrated Detachment Model.

The Commission held a public meeting to consider the proposal.

The Commission found that the OPP proposal would provide adequate and effective policing in accordance with the Town's needs, maintaining a comparable officer-to-population ratio and providing access to specialized OPP resources.

The Commission also found that fair severance arrangements had been made for all employees, ordering arbitration for the Chief of Police if an agreement could not be reached within 60 days.

The application for disbandment was granted.

The appellant filed a complaint against a police officer for conducting unlawful CPIC searches.

The police service attempted to resolve the matter informally without the appellant's consent, contrary to the Police Services Act.

At the disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer quashed the charges against the officer, citing the criminal law principle of double jeopardy because the officer had already been counselled.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the informal resolution was a legal nullity due to lack of consent, that double jeopardy does not apply to administrative employment discipline, and that the Hearing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons.

The matter was remitted for a hearing.