Roy Conacher Q.C.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for allegedly using unnecessary force during the G20 summit.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the Notice of Hearing served on the officer differed from the draft notice approved by the Police Services Board in a delay application under section 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's role under section 83(17) is limited to determining whether the delay in serving the notice was reasonable, not approving the specific wording of the charge.

The Commission revoked the stay and remitted the matter for a re-hearing.

The Appellant, an off-duty police officer, removed mulch from a school property without permission and subsequently misled the investigating officer.

He was found guilty of discreditable conduct and demoted from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for one year.

He appealed the finding of guilt and the penalty to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decisions on credibility, admission of hearsay evidence, and penalty were reasonable and supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The appellant police officer was suspended with pay and ordered by the Chief of Police to disclose his income and hours worked from secondary employment.

The officer refused, arguing that because his secondary employment commenced prior to his suspension, he was exempt from reporting under section 89(8) of the Police Services Act.

He was convicted of insubordination at a disciplinary hearing.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding that section 89(8) does not excuse an officer from complying with a lawful order of the Chief to disclose secondary employment information, which the Chief is entitled to request to ensure the officer is not engaged in full-time employment for another person.

The appellant police officer appealed two penalty decisions ordering her dismissal from the police service.

The first penalty arose from findings of breach of confidence and discreditable conduct for disclosing confidential accident locations to a tow truck operator and offering to help withdraw a traffic ticket.

The second penalty arose from a finding of deceit for lying to investigators during a compelled interview regarding the first matter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld both dismissal penalties, finding that the hearing officers properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the officer's short employment history, prior discipline, and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The moving party, a public complainant, sought leave to appeal a penalty decision that suspended a police officer for one day without pay for making an unlawful arrest during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The moving party argued that the arrest breached his Charter rights and that the appropriate penalty was of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the test for leave to appeal and found that, given the circumstances of the unlawful arrest and detention, the issue of the appropriate penalty was of significant importance.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The Ontario Provincial Police brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by Sergeant Mulligan regarding his transfer from aviation duties.

The OPP argued the transfer was an administrative decision, not a disciplinary one, and therefore the Commission lacked jurisdiction.

The Commission found that the essential character of the dispute was disciplinary, stemming from allegations of insubordination, and constituted disguised discipline.

Applying a liberal interpretation of the Police Services Act, the Commission determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the lack of a formal disciplinary hearing.

The motion was dismissed and the appeal was ordered to proceed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion seeking the return of allegedly privileged handwritten notes that were disclosed to the respondent, a member of a Police Services Board, in advance of a disciplinary hearing.

The Commission argued the disclosure was inadvertent.

The panel found that while it had jurisdiction to order the return of improperly disclosed documents under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the notes in question were not protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Furthermore, even if they were privileged, the disclosure was not inadvertent because the Commission admitted it did not have a practice of vetting documents for privilege prior to disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion seeking the return of allegedly privileged handwritten notes that were disclosed to the respondent, a member of a Police Services Board, in advance of a disciplinary hearing.

The Commission argued the disclosure was inadvertent.

The respondent argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction to order the return, the notes were not privileged, and any privilege was waived.

The panel found that while it had jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to order the return of improperly disclosed documents, the notes in question were not privileged.

Furthermore, even if they were privileged, the disclosure was not inadvertent because the Commission had no practice of vetting documents for privilege prior to disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion to adduce new evidence on appeal, specifically transcripts from his criminal trial, and requested that the respondent police service acquire and provide them.

The appellant had previously declined to obtain or use the transcripts during the disciplinary hearing.

Applying the Palmer test, the Commission found that the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing with due diligence.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted of impaired driving while off duty.

A joint submission proposed a forfeiture of 100 hours, but the Hearing Officer rejected it and imposed a 15-month demotion.

On appeal, the Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias in the Hearing Officer's decision to reject the joint submission or his reference to public opinion.

However, the Commission found the 15-month demotion was harsh and excessive, as the Hearing Officer failed to distinguish the appellant's circumstances from more serious cases and placed too much weight on general deterrence.

The penalty was varied to a 9-month demotion.

The applicant, a member of a police services board, brought a motion seeking the recusal of a panel member from his disciplinary hearing.

The applicant argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the panel member had previously adjudicated a disciplinary matter involving the Chief of Police, whose conduct the applicant claimed was factually connected to his own charges.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding no material connection between the two cases that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the panel member lacked an open mind.

The prior decision involved a penalty following a guilty plea and made no findings regarding the applicant.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination after failing to comply with an order from the Chief of Police to provide information regarding his secondary employment in a home construction company.

The appellant argued that the order was unlawful because it requested personal and corporate tax records.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Chief's order was lawful as it was issued for the public purpose of investigating compliance with the Police Services Act.

The Commission held that the appellant had a duty to respond to the lawful portions of the order and that relying on legal advice did not provide a lawful excuse for his failure to comply.