Tammy Landau

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct for incivility toward a civilian town employee.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility, failed to consider his medical state, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias due to a comment about his counsel's ethnicity.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and applied the correct objective test for discreditable conduct.

The Commission also held that the single comment regarding counsel's ethnicity, while inappropriate, did not impact the substantive issues or create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Wikwemikong Tribal Police Service brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by a First Nations Constable from a finding of discreditable conduct.

The moving party argued that the Ontario Civilian Police Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because First Nations Constables are explicitly excluded from the definition of 'police officer' under the Police Services Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that its statutory authority to hear appeals under section 87 of the Act applies only to police officers and complainants.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to third-class constable for six months, which was imposed after she pled guilty to discreditable conduct stemming from an off-duty criminal conviction for causing a disturbance.

At the disciplinary hearing, the parties had presented a joint submission for a lesser penalty of demotion to second-class constable.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission without providing notice or reasons.

On appeal, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer violated principles of fairness by failing to give notice or an opportunity to make submissions before departing from the joint submission.

The appeal was allowed on consent, the original penalty was revoked, and the jointly proposed penalty was substituted.

The appellant, a member of the public, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police constable not guilty of misconduct for an allegedly unlawful or unnecessary arrest.

The appellant had been stopped for an expired license plate and was subsequently arrested for "about to assault" after exiting his vehicle.

The Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and findings of fact.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the arrest was lawful and necessary was reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence, given the officer's perception of threat cues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of misconduct arising from an unprovoked assault on a handcuffed prisoner accompanied by discriminatory comments.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in principle by disregarding positive character evidence and failing to properly apply the usefulness test.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant factors, including mitigating ones, and reasonably concluded that the egregious nature of the misconduct and the bias demonstrated rendered the officer no longer useful to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant arrested a civilian for public intoxication under the Liquor Licence Act and used force during the arrest.

The Hearing Officer found the civilian and his companion credible and concluded the arrest was unlawful and the force unnecessary.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions on credibility and the evidence were not void of evidentiary foundation.

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

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted touching directed at a female civilian co-worker.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent gender sensitivity counseling.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's decision to deny an adjournment request, finding the appellant had ample time to prepare.

Finally, the Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the seriousness of the workplace sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for domestic assault and indecent exposure, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

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

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted touching directed at a female civilian co-worker.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by denying an adjournment request and that the penalty was excessive.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the adjournment denial was reasonable given the history of delays and lack of medical evidence.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the seriousness of the workplace sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for criminal offences, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

A motion to introduce new evidence of post-termination counseling was also denied.

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

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and touching directed at a civilian employee.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it failed the Palmer test.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's decision to deny an adjournment, noting the appellant's history of delays and failure to justify the request.

Finally, the Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, emphasizing the seriousness of the sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision clearing two police officers of misconduct.

The Commission previously revoked that decision and found the officers guilty of making an unlawful and unnecessary arrest and using unnecessary force against the appellant in a courtroom.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the seriousness of the misconduct against mitigating factors, including the officers' employment records and the appellant's provocative behaviour.

The Commission ordered the senior officer to be suspended without pay for four days (32 hours) and the junior officer to forfeit two days (16 hours) off.

The appellant successfully appealed a hearing officer's decision, resulting in findings of misconduct against two police officers for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

This decision determines the appropriate penalty.

The Commission considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the officers' employment histories, and the element of provocation by the appellant.

Constable Parker, who initiated the arrest, was suspended without pay for 32 hours.

Constable Koscinski, who assisted, was ordered to forfeit 16 hours off.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision that found two police officers not guilty of misconduct for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

The Commission previously revoked the hearing officer's findings and substituted determinations of guilt.

In this penalty decision, the Commission considered the officers' employment histories, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the appellant's provocative behavior.

The Commission imposed a penalty of a 32-hour suspension without pay for the primary officer and a forfeiture of 16 hours off for the junior officer who assisted.

The appellant was arrested by two police officers for causing a disturbance in a courtroom while a Justice of the Peace was presiding over his wife's trial.

The officers dragged the appellant from the courtroom and used force to restrain him.

The appellant filed a public complaint, and a disciplinary hearing initially cleared the officers.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the hearing officer's decision, finding that the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary because the presiding Justice of the Peace's authority to control the courtroom and deal with contempt superseded the officers' general authority to arrest for a disturbance.

Consequently, the force used was unjustified, and the officers were found guilty of misconduct.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing allegations of misconduct against two police officers.

The officers had arrested the appellant for causing a disturbance in a courtroom while a Justice of the Peace was presiding, subsequently using force to remove him.

The Commission revoked the hearing officer's decision, finding that the officers' general authority to arrest for a disturbance was superseded by the presiding Justice of the Peace's authority to control the courtroom and deal with contempt.

The Commission concluded the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary, rendering the force used unjustified, and found the officers guilty of misconduct.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that cleared two police officers of misconduct for arresting him and using force in a courtroom.

The appellant had been making disruptive comments during his wife's trial.

The officers arrested him for causing a disturbance without direction from the presiding Justice of the Peace.

The Commission found that the officers' authority to arrest for a disturbance was superseded by the presiding Justice of the Peace's power to control the courtroom and deal with contempt.

The Commission concluded the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary, and therefore the force used was unjustified, revoking the hearing officer's decision and finding the officers guilty of misconduct.