Sylvia Hudson

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had issued two sets of summonses to a motorist but only served one set, leading to the motorist being convicted in absentia on the unserved charges and wrongfully incarcerated for five days.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the evidence supported the conviction and that the officer's deliberate dishonesty, lack of remorse, and the severe consequences to the innocent motorist justified the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant, a senior police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had stopped a motorist and issued five summonses, but also prepared a second set of six summonses using the driving history of another individual with the same name.

The officer failed to serve the second set of summonses but later testified in court that he had, resulting in the innocent motorist being convicted in absentia, fined, and incarcerated for five days.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt, noting it was well-supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding the officer's actions constituted egregious misconduct that caused a serious miscarriage of justice and irreparably damaged his usefulness to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for discreditable conduct and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal, arising from a false affidavit she swore regarding a parking ticket.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction because the Notice of Hearing was served more than six months after the investigators had a sufficient body of factual information to support the allegations, violating the mandatory limitation period in s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The convictions and penalty were quashed.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a disciplinary penalty of forfeiture of 20 days or 160 hours off after pleading guilty to two counts of neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved the use of an unauthorized 'informal system' for scheduling and timekeeping.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services found that while the misconduct was serious, the hearing officer failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's exemplary 29-year service record, his guilty plea, and the context of the widespread use of the informal system.

The appeal was allowed and the penalty was reduced to forfeiture of 10 days or 80 hours off.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to ten counts of misconduct, including discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and corrupt practice.

The misconduct involved the unauthorized removal of pornographic photographs from a citizen's home, failing to account for police batons, and engaging in an inappropriate, undocumented relationship with a 17-year-old female while on duty.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the officer's deliberate course of conduct, lack of appreciation for established procedures, and prior disciplinary record demonstrated he was ungovernable and beyond rehabilitation.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of dismissal was confirmed.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct and was found guilty of one count of corrupt practice.

The misconduct involved importing khat while returning from Kenya, attempting to use his police status to avoid customs scrutiny, and lying to officials.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer properly balanced the relevant factors, including the serious nature of the misconduct, the damage to the police service's reputation, and the lack of rehabilitation potential, and upheld the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to second-class constable for six months following a guilty plea to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved driving an unregistered and uninsured personal vehicle and failing to report an accident.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer did not err in principle and properly considered the officer's prior disciplinary record and the principle of progressive discipline.

The penalty was deemed reasonable and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The officer had been dispatched to assist park wardens with evicting underage campers and administered a breathalyzer test to the appellant.

The appellant alleged arbitrary detention and Charter breaches.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the Hearing Officer to accept the officer's evidence that the breathalyzer test was voluntary and to conclude that misconduct was not established on clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The allegations stemmed from an incident where the appellant and his friends were evicted from a provincial park for underage drinking and noise.

The officer, called to assist, placed the appellant in his cruiser and administered a breathalyzer test.

The appellant alleged arbitrary detention and Charter breaches.

The Hearing Officer accepted the officer's evidence that the test was voluntary and for the sole purpose of ensuring safe driving upon eviction.

The Commission applied a standard of reasonableness simpliciter, deferred to the Hearing Officer's credibility findings, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of discreditable conduct.

The charges arose from criminal proceedings involving an assault on a fellow officer with whom he had a domestic relationship, and two subsequent breaches of a recognizance.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant penalty factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for threatening, and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The Commission concluded that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable and within the Hearing Officer's discretion.

The appellant, a senior police officer, appealed a penalty of forfeiture of three days imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct for misusing police resources.

While on duty, the appellant used police resources to pursue a personal grievance against members of another police service.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer considered the appropriate mitigating and aggravating factors and that the penalty was not manifestly excessive.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to serve the notice of appeal on the affected parties within the 30-day limitation period required by the Police Services Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant served the Commission within the time limit but served the respondents by mail outside the 30-day window.

The Commission found that while the Act itself only explicitly requires service on the Commission within 30 days, the Commission's Rules of Practice mandate service on the affected parties within the same timeframe.

As the appellant failed to comply with the Rules and did not request an extension or attend the motion, the Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to serve the notice of appeal on the affected parties within the 30-day limitation period required by the Police Services Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant did not file responding materials or attend the motion hearing.

The Commission found that while the Act itself only explicitly requires service on the Commission within 30 days, the Commission's Rules mandate service on all affected parties within the same timeframe.

Because the appellant failed to comply with the Rules and did not request an extension, the motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failure to comply with the service requirements under subsection 70(1) of the Police Services Act and section 8.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant failed to serve the affected parties with the Notice of Appeal within the 30-day limitation period.

The appellant did not file responding materials or attend the motion hearing to request an extension of time.

The Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of insubordination.

While suspended with pay due to criminal charges, he was prohibited from entering police property.

He attended a police division to retrieve videotape disclosure for his criminal defence, arguing he had an honest and mistaken belief he was allowed to do so.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding it was unreasonable for the appellant to unilaterally decide the prohibition did not apply without making inquiries.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer was suspended from duty with pay following a criminal charge, with a condition prohibiting him from entering police property.

He subsequently entered a police division to retrieve videotape disclosure for his criminal defence, leading to a disciplinary conviction for insubordination.

On appeal, he argued the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider his defence of lawful excuse or honest and mistaken belief.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest and overriding error in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the appellant's belief was unreasonable.

The appellant police officer was suspended from duty with pay following a criminal charge, with a condition prohibiting him from entering police property.

While suspended, he entered the police station to retrieve videotape disclosure for his criminal defence, leading to a disciplinary conviction for insubordination.

On appeal, he argued the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider his defence of lawful excuse or honest and mistaken belief.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest and overriding error in the Hearing Officer's rejection of the defence, as the appellant's unilateral decision to enter the property without inquiring with authority was unreasonable.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct for intentionally making numerous harassing phone calls to a fellow officer.

The calls consisted of background noise and were made from the appellant's cell phone using a speed dial key.

The appellant argued the calls were accidental.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that it could not interfere with the Hearing Officer's decision unless it lacked an evidentiary foundation or contained a manifest error in principle.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer carefully analyzed the evidence, including expert testimony on accidental activation, and reasonably concluded that the calls were intentional.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for allegedly making numerous harassing phone calls to a fellow officer.

The calls consisted of background noise and were made from the appellant's cell phone, which had the complainant's number programmed on speed dial.

The appellant argued the calls were accidental.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision to reject the accidental activation defence was supported by the evidence and contained no manifest error in principle.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making numerous harassing phone calls to a colleague.

The appellant argued the calls were accidentally made by his cell phone's speed dial function.

The Hearing Officer rejected the accidental activation defence and found the calls were intentional.

On appeal, the Commission held that its role was restricted to determining if the decision lacked evidentiary foundation or contained a manifest error in principle.

Finding neither, the Commission deferred to the Hearing Officer and dismissed the appeal.