Shaun MacGrath

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and admonishment for neglect of duty after a prisoner escaped from his custody.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the escape of a previously secured prisoner established a prima facie case of carelessness or neglect.

The appellant failed to rebut this presumption, and under the applicable regulations, officers engaged in guarding a prisoner share collective and individual responsibility.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed her conviction for neglect of duty after a prisoner escaped from her custody.

The appellant was one of three officers at the scene of an arrest where four individuals were taken into custody.

While the prisoners were outside, one escaped into the bush.

The appellant, who was closest to the escaping prisoner, failed to immediately pursue him or notify another officer who was leaving the scene.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the escape of a secured prisoner raised a reasonable assumption of carelessness, compounded by the appellant's failure to seek assistance.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and penalty of an admonishment were confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for Discreditable Conduct (based on a criminal conviction for theft under $200) and the penalty of compulsory resignation.

He argued the charge sheet was a nullity due to the involvement of a Disciplinary Committee, improper amendments, and pre-charge delay violating the Charter and the Provincial Offences Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, that the Provincial Offences Act limitation periods do not apply to Police Act disciplinary hearings, and that the penalty was justified given the premeditation and concealment involved in the theft.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Board of Commissioners of Police applied to the Ontario Police Commission to determine the status of its Chief Clerk, a civilian member, as a senior officer.

The Police Association opposed the application, arguing the position was within the bargaining unit.

The Commission found that the Chief Clerk possessed confidential budget and salary information and participated in in-camera meetings regarding negotiation strategy.

Consequently, the Commission determined the position was of a 'confidential capacity' and granted the application to classify the Chief Clerk as a senior officer.

The appellant, a Chief of Police, appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct arising from an off-duty incident at a curling bonspiel where he was intoxicated and acted boisterously.

The appellant argued that the disciplinary charge was statute-barred under s. 11 of the Public Authorities Protection Act because it was laid more than six months after the incident.

The Commission held that police officers have a statutory duty under the Police Act to be of good conduct, even when off duty, and therefore the six-month limitation period in the Public Authorities Protection Act applied to disciplinary proceedings for breaches of the Code of Offences.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and consuming intoxicating liquor while on duty.

The charges arose from an incident where the officers visited a tavern while on duty, and one officer danced nude on stage.

The appellants argued the convictions should be quashed because the exact date of the offence was not proven.

The Commission held that the failure to prove the exact date was not fatal, as the charges were explicit and the evidence was sufficient.

The Commission also upheld the penalties, finding the conduct destroyed trust and confidence in the officers.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

He had failed to promptly respond to a dispatch regarding speeding trucks, instead attempting to reassign the duty to another officer in an unauthorized manner.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the purported transfer of duties did not constitute a lawful excuse and that the appellant failed to promptly and diligently perform his assigned duty.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of the loss of three rest days was upheld.