Roy Conacher

The appellant police officer brought a motion to strike portions of a factum delivered by the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), acting as a statutory intervener in her disciplinary appeal.

The appellant argued the OIPRD overstepped its permissible boundaries by making submissions not based on the record and inviting policy considerations.

The Commission held it had jurisdiction to strike portions of a factum under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to control its own process.

The Commission struck one paragraph that requested an order beyond the OIPRD's mandate, but dismissed the remainder of the motion, finding the other impugned paragraphs were not so obviously irrelevant or inappropriately prejudicial as to justify being struck.

The Appellant, a police officer found guilty of misconduct, brought a motion seeking permission to deliver a Factum in excess of the 30-page limit set by the Commission's Practice Direction (proposing a 134-page Factum) and requesting up to three days for oral argument.

The Commission reviewed the factors for granting relief from factum length limits and found that the appeal did not raise exceptionally complex issues justifying a 134-page factum.

However, considering counsel's submissions, the Commission exercised its discretion to allow a 50-page Factum and scheduled the appeal for one day, granting the Appellant up to three hours for oral argument.

The appellant police officer brought a motion within her disciplinary appeal to adduce fresh evidence and obtain disclosure regarding her permanent removal from the Emergency Response Team (ERT).

She argued the removal constituted disguised discipline that resulted in a loss of specialty and overtime pay, which should have been considered by the Hearing Officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test and granted the request to adduce fresh evidence regarding the financial impact of her removal.

The Commission also applied the West Park Hospital test and ordered the respondent to disclose materials related to the removal decision, finding the information arguably relevant to the live issue of whether the removal was disguised discipline or a purely operational decision.

Following a finding of misconduct against Greg Oliver, a member and former Chair of the Stirling-Rawdon Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a penalty hearing.

The Commission found that Oliver engaged in a deliberate and persistent course of conduct that discredited and compromised the integrity of the Board and the police service, particularly through his antagonistic and disrespectful treatment of the Chief of Police.

Applying the Gardner penalty assessment factors, the Commission concluded that Oliver's lack of remorse, failure to heed advice, and fundamental misunderstanding of his role as a public steward warranted the most severe penalty.

Oliver was ordered removed from the Board.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that dismissed charges of neglect of duty against two police officers.

The officers had investigated a fatal motor vehicle collision involving a pedestrian and declined to demand an approved screening device (ASD) sample from the driver, despite the driver's admission to consuming one or two beers earlier in the evening.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that the officers did not have a reasonable suspicion that the driver had alcohol in his body at the time of the accident, as there were no physical indicia of alcohol consumption or impairment.

The Commission concluded that the officers reasonably exercised their discretion under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 48 hours forfeiture of time off imposed for discreditable conduct arising from a domestic dispute.

The hearing officer had considered a prior disciplinary conviction that was subsequently quashed on appeal.

The parties presented a joint submission to implement the hearing officer's alternative penalty of 24 hours forfeiture.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding the joint submission reasonable, and varied the penalty to 24 hours forfeiture of time off and a written apology.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for deceit and the penalty of demotion imposed for three counts of misconduct, including unauthorized access to police databases (CPIC and RMS) and deceit during a professional standards interview.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the officer deliberately lied to investigators to distance himself from an individual with a criminal record.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of demotion from First-Class to Third-Class Constable for one year, finding it consistent with the seriousness of the multiple breaches and the officer's deceit.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

The officer had been found guilty of failing to ensure a subpoenaed witness remained at court to testify in a careless driving prosecution, resulting in the charge being dismissed.

On appeal, the officer argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended the evidence and erred in assessing the credibility of the witness over the conflicting testimony of a court officer and the Crown Prosecutor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable and not void of evidentiary foundation.

The penalty of a 3-day suspension without pay was also upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and a penalty of a 3-day suspension for neglect of duty.

The charge arose after the officer allegedly told a subpoenaed witness in a careless driving trial that he did not need to stay, resulting in the charge being dismissed.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence and erred in assessing witness credibility.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and not void of evidentiary foundation.

The penalty was also upheld as appropriate.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion after he was arrested and convicted of impaired driving in Ohio while off-duty.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by relying on his no-contest plea in Ohio, admitting breathalyzer evidence that did not meet Canadian standards, and failing to stay the proceedings due to the destruction of audio and video tapes by Ohio authorities.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's evidentiary rulings or application of Canadian law to the foreign conduct.

The penalty of demotion from First-Class to Third-Class Constable for two years was upheld as reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct and the need for general deterrence.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of seven days' pay.

The charges arose after the appellant was quoted in a newspaper article discussing ongoing disciplinary charges against him and making derogatory comments about the police service.

He subsequently refused to comply with five orders (four written, one verbal) to attend an investigative interview, acting on the advice of his legal counsel who argued the notices lacked sufficient detail.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the notices complied with the Police Services Act and constituted lawful orders.

The Commission held that reliance on legal advice does not provide a lawful excuse for a police officer to disobey a lawful order, and upheld the penalty as appropriate.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose from his investigation of a stolen vehicle and its occupants, where he failed to properly search, inventory, and determine ownership of property found in the vehicle, and improperly released property to a suspect.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence and that the appellant, as the lead investigator, was responsible for ensuring a proper investigation was conducted.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted criminally for shoplifting and uttering threats while off duty.

The Hearing Officer ordered his dismissal.

On appeal, the Commission found the Hearing Officer committed a manifest error in principle by accepting the diagnosis of work-related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) but failing to consider it as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase.

The uncontradicted medical evidence showed the appellant had recovered and his risk of reoffending was extremely low.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a one-year demotion to third-class constable with mandatory psychological monitoring.