Stephen Jovanovic

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion decision that denied their request to change the in-person hearing venue from Toronto to Brampton.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the venue decision was interlocutory, the reconsideration request was dismissed.

The appellant, a police officer, brought an appeal under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

Before the Commission rendered its decision, the parties advised that the appellant had retired from the respondent police service.

Consequently, the Commission determined it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter and quashed the appeal.

The Corporation of the Town of Midland and the Midland Police Services Board applied for the consent of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to disband the Midland Police Service.

The Commission consented to the application and ordered that any disputes regarding severance pay owing to the Chief of Police or members represented by the Midland Police Association or Senior Officers' Association be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the Police Services Act.

Three police officers appealed the penalty of dismissal (or order to resign) imposed by a Hearing Officer after they pled guilty to multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, discreditable conduct, and insubordination.

The misconduct primarily involved their participation in a BBM group where they shared degrading and discriminatory photographs and comments about members of the public and other officers, as well as failing to report another officer's criminal activities.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding that the Hearing Officer did not misapprehend expert psychiatric evidence regarding group dynamics, properly weighed mitigating factors such as rehabilitation and guilty pleas against the egregious nature of the misconduct, and correctly applied the legal test for dismissal.

The Commission upheld the conclusion that the officers' actions irreparably damaged the reputation of the police service, justifying the ultimate penalty of dismissal.

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 appealed a conviction for insubordination under the Code of Conduct.

The officer had refused an order from a superior to change his investigative conclusion on a Motor Vehicle Collision Report, maintaining his honest belief that a civilian driver, rather than a fellow officer, was at fault.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the order was unlawful because it would have forced the officer to sign a document he believed to be inaccurate, which is tantamount to deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The conviction was substituted with an acquittal.

The appellant police officer was convicted of insubordination for refusing to comply with an order from a superior to change the finding of fault on a motor vehicle collision report.

The officer honestly believed his original conclusion was accurate.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the order was unlawful because it would have forced the officer to sign a document he believed to be inaccurate, which is tantamount to deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was substituted with an acquittal.