W.D. Drinkwalter

The appellant police officer appealed findings of discreditable conduct and penalties of resignation or dismissal arising from two off-duty incidents involving alcohol and drugs.

The Commission reduced the penalty for the first charge (impaired driving) to a forfeiture of twenty days off, noting the Force's principle that alcoholism is a treatable disease.

On the second charge (involvement with crack cocaine), the Commission upheld the finding of guilt based on the officer's presence and participation in a drug scene, but found no clear evidence that he actually used the drug.

The penalty for the second charge was reduced to a demotion to Fourth Class Constable for one year, subject to strict conditions including participation in Alcoholics Anonymous.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and a penalty of 24 hours forfeiture of time off.

The charges arose from a four-day delay in reporting a superior officer's misconduct regarding a lowered breathalyzer reading, and a failure to ensure seized liquor was properly recorded.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the four-day delay in reporting the superior's actions was not unreasonable given the circumstances.

However, the Commission upheld the finding of neglect of duty regarding the failure to properly record the seized liquor, as the appellant's words led subordinate officers to dispose of it.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the penalty was reduced to a forfeiture of 12 hours time off.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was involved in a driving altercation where he assaulted a civilian, causing extensive facial damage.

He was convicted of assault causing bodily harm under the Criminal Code.

Following a disciplinary hearing under the Police Services Act, he was found guilty of discreditable conduct and dismissed from the police service.

He appealed the penalty to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing it was disproportionate and disparate compared to other cases.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the severity of the violence and the officer's lack of credibility—highlighted by his reliance on a fabricated timeline regarding his father's accident to claim emotional stress—justified the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

While off duty, the appellant was stopped and found to be driving with an expired validation tag, an expired driver's licence, and an expired insurance certificate.

The appellant argued that he should be treated like any other citizen for regulatory offences and that discreditable conduct should be reserved for more serious issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the public expects police officers to adhere to the laws they enforce, and driving with multiple expired documents fell below that standard.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct and neglect of duty arising from a sexual relationship with a female member of the public.

He argued that the charges were duplicitous, lacked sufficient evidence, were vague as to time, and that the presiding officer's reasons lacked particulars.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charges were distinct, the evidence supported the likelihood of bringing discredit to the police force, the appellant knew the case he had to meet, and the presiding officer's credibility findings were reasonable.

The Commission also upheld the penalties imposed, including a reduction in rank.

The appellant police sergeant appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and a penalty of four days' lost pay.

The charge arose from his failure to place himself on duty and take charge of a search and rescue operation for three missing boaters while he was the on-call supervisor.

The Commission found that the Canadian Coast Guard had jurisdiction over the search and that the appellant's physical presence would not have altered the tragic outcome.

The Commission concluded that the appellant did not neglect his duty and quashed the conviction and penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty and the imposed penalty of five days' pay.

The appellant argued that the hearing officer erred in weighing evidence and assessing credibility, and that the penalty was excessive compared to an initial informal offer of admonishment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against the conviction, noting that it could not review credibility findings without a transcript of the hearing.

The Commission also dismissed the penalty appeal, holding that the disparity between an informal offer and a trial penalty is a risk of proceeding to a hearing, and found the five-day penalty reasonable.

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to a discipline offence after receiving a discharge for a criminal conviction under s. 206(1)(e) of the Criminal Code for participating in a pyramid scheme.

The hearing officer imposed a penalty of a reduction in rank for one year, which amounted to a financial loss of approximately $4,000.

The officer appealed the penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the penalty too severe given the officer's unblemished record and the nature of the offence, which was characterized as a prohibited form of gambling.

The penalty was reduced to a loss of five days' pay and a reprimand.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and penalty of forfeiture of two vacation days for a breach of confidence.

The officer had queried the Canadian Police Information Centre and warned his brother, a lawyer, that a client was thought to be violent and dangerous.

The Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, rejecting arguments regarding non-disclosure of unedited documents and the sufficiency of evidence.

However, finding the breach to be technical and understandable, the Commission reduced the penalty to a reprimand.

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after using excessive corporal punishment on his son, who suffered from severe behavioural issues.

He was subsequently charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered to resign or be dismissed.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission considered the officer's 14-year unblemished record, his sincere efforts to manage a difficult child, and the exceptional circumstances of the case.

The Commission concluded that dismissal was too severe and reduced the penalty to a reduction in rank for 12 months.

The appellant, a Detective Sergeant and Detachment Commander, appealed his convictions on two counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a reduction in rank to First Class Constable.

The charges stemmed from allegations of sexual harassment, including unwelcome comments and physical touching, directed at a civilian dispatcher and a co-op student.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals against both conviction and penalty, finding that the evidence supported the convictions, the procedural rulings were appropriate, and the penalty was the minimum acceptable given the serious nature of sexual harassment by a superior officer.

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

The charge arose after the appellant attended a residence at 2:00 a.m. to deliver provincial offence notices for minor infractions to individuals known to be hostile to police and who had been consuming alcohol.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the appellant's actions were unnecessary, inappropriate, and likely to bring discredit upon the police force.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, sustaining both the finding of guilt and the penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the penalty of a loss of five days' leave.

The officer had supplied cases of beer to a civilian on Sundays through the back door of a restaurant owned by his wife.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the adjudicator's finding that the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force, rejecting the argument that it was merely an exchange among friends.

The Commission also confirmed the penalty, noting the application of progressive discipline given a prior conviction for discreditable conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his use of profanity toward a civilian whose vehicle he had towed.

The officer argued that the charge was a nullity due to missing particulars, that the signing of the charge sheet was invalid, and that the hearing board erred in its credibility findings and application of the standard of proof.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the missing particulars did not prejudice the officer, the signing officer adequately considered the allegations, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction on a balance of probabilities.

The appellant police officer was convicted of neglect of duty for leaving his assigned patrol area without permission or sufficient cause.

He appealed the conviction, arguing he had sufficient cause because he accompanied another officer to a violent domestic call outside his area.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that even if his attendance was justified, he had adequate opportunity to notify control via radio and failed to do so, which vitiated his defence of sufficient cause.

The appellant police officer appealed his disciplinary conviction and penalty for deceit, arising from a false statement he made regarding the escape of an arrested person.

The appellant argued that the offence of deceit requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of proof is 'clear and convincing evidence' and that the maximum penalty for a minor offence was appropriate given the facts.

The appellant appealed a penalty imposed following his guilty plea to a charge of discreditable conduct (assault).

The charge was laid under the former Police Act, but the hearing occurred after the Police Services Act came into force, resulting in procedural irregularities.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission quashed the original penalty and substituted a penalty of forfeiture of 20 days leave or days off.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed his conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

He was convicted of failing to diligently inquire into a complaint from a female constable that she had been indecently assaulted by a male constable.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding ample evidence to support the Hearing Officer's credibility findings.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty of a two-day pay forfeiture, holding that the penalty imposed after a formal hearing is not limited by the lesser penalty proposed during the informal discipline process.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct after having sexual intercourse with a civilian in their patrol car while on duty.

They argued the matter should have been handled as a public complaint, which would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and challenged the admissibility of electronically intercepted conversations under Section 8 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding the complaint was not a public complaint, the Charter arguments failed, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severe breach of public trust.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to deceit and discreditable conduct for falsifying records regarding the discovery of cocaine during a traffic stop.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and unjust, noting a co-accused officer received a lesser penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's lack of remorse and reformation distinguished his case from the co-accused, and his conduct demonstrated unfitness to hold the office of constable.