Ted Crljenica

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay Police Services Act misconduct proceedings against two police officers for abuse of process due to delay.

The proceedings arose from an incident over eight years prior, and the Hearing Officer found the delay, largely attributable to the prosecution, was inexcusable and caused significant prejudice to the officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Blencoe test for abuse of process.

The Commission concluded the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of Discreditable Conduct and ordering her resignation or dismissal.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty domestic incident where the appellant held a knife to her throat while holding her child and threatened to drive into a transport truck.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer made numerous errors, including failing to properly consider her mental state and PTSD diagnosis.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police service and that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severity of the conduct and the appellant's disciplinary history.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for neglect of duty and unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority arising from his use of force against an intoxicated, handcuffed individual in a police cruiser.

The Commission revoked the finding of guilt for unlawful exercise of authority, finding the Hearing Officer applied the wrong standard of proof, improperly relied on personal experience to determine the cause of the individual's injury, and made irreconcilably inconsistent findings of credibility.

However, the Commission confirmed the finding of guilt for neglect of duty, upholding the determination that the appellant deliberately misled his supervisor and failed to properly document the use of force in his notes and reports.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to deceit and insubordination.

The misconduct involved making a false statement to investigators regarding his brother's whereabouts and conducting unauthorized database searches.

The Commission found the penalty of dismissal unreasonable, noting the Hearing Officer erred in principle by relying on speculative findings and the fact of the officer's suspension.

The Commission varied the penalty to a forfeiture of nine days' pay for insubordination, and a 30-day suspension without pay followed by a two-year demotion to fourth-class constable for deceit.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty decision ordering him to resign or be summarily dismissed following convictions for criminal harassment and breach of trust.

The misconduct involved stalking his former partner and conducting unauthorized police database searches.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer appropriately weighed the penalty factors, including the egregious nature of the offences, the damage to the police service's reputation, and the appellant's limited prospects for rehabilitation.

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

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct, which were based on a guilty plea and a joint submission.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, arguing that his guilty plea was involuntary and resulted from the ineffective assistance of his former counsel, who allegedly failed to properly advance a defence based on his mental health (panic attacks).

The Commission admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was fit to instruct counsel, the plea was voluntary, and he failed to establish that his former counsel's representation was incompetent or resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The penalty of a nine-month demotion was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision requiring her to resign or face termination after she pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting fraudulent health benefit claims.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh, excessive, and inconsistent with similar cases where officers were demoted rather than dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the usefulness test, the officer's short tenure, and the severity of the repetitive fraud.

A dissenting member would have substituted a penalty of demotion based on consistency with prior disciplinary cases.