W.D. Drinkwalter

The parties applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to reconsider and clarify a previous appeal decision that quashed a police officer's dismissal and substituted a demotion.

The parties sought clarification on the effective date of the demotion.

The Commission declined to conduct a hearing to interpret its previous decision, finding that the decision was clear and unambiguous, and that the effective date of the penalty was a question of law to be determined by the courts, though it noted its understanding that the effective date would be the date of the original penalty.

The appellant, a police constable, sought an extension of time to serve a Notice of Appeal regarding his dismissal from the police force following a criminal conviction for assault.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that under Section 24 of Regulation 791, the maximum period within which a Notice of Appeal may be served is 45 days, and therefore it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time.

In the alternative, the Commission found that the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit to justify an extension of time, and dismissed the application.

The Town of Wallaceburg applied to the Ontario Police Commission under section 14(3) of the Police Act to resolve a budget dispute with the Board of Commissioners of Police.

The Town sought an $80,000 reduction in the police budget, proposing cuts to the marine patrol, communications staff, and overall complement.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the proposed reductions would impair the Board's ability to maintain an adequate police force in accordance with the police needs of the municipality.

The appellant police officer was convicted of six counts of discreditable conduct relating to unwelcome sexual overtones and harassment of six women, both on and off duty.

He appealed the convictions and the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the hearing judge's conclusion that the conduct brought discredit upon the police force.

The Commission upheld the penalty, noting the officer's prior reprimand for similar conduct and the necessity of public trust in police integrity.

The City of Brantford Police Association applied to determine the status of certain civilian employees under Section 23(2) of the Police Act, arguing they were not 'senior officers'.

The Ontario Police Commission found that the Director of Planning and Research acted in a confidential capacity and the Supervisor of Central Records acted in a supervisory capacity, making them senior officers.

For the remaining two positions, the Commission found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove they were not senior officers.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the respondent police force was incompetent in its investigation of a series of rock-throwing incidents at his property.

The police force had deployed significant resources, including an OPP tracking dog, physical surveillance, surveillance cameras, and extensive interviews, accumulating over 200 hours of investigation time.

The Commission found that the police force had taken all reasonable steps to locate a suspect and that the complaint of incompetence was unfounded.

The complaint was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Force Adjudicator after he pleaded guilty to a disciplinary charge of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from his criminal conviction for sexual assault, for which he received a conditional discharge.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, noting that the officer had testified at his criminal trial and his evidence was rejected as unbelievable and unreasonable.

The Commission held that because a police officer's duty requires testifying in court, the destruction of his credibility meant he could no longer function as a police officer.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of ten forfeited vacation days imposed for discreditable conduct related to operating a sporting goods store without the Commissioner's consent.

The parties presented a joint submission recommending a reduced penalty of five vacation days, citing a change in the Ontario Provincial Police Force's policy regarding secondary employment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission accepted the joint submission, allowed the appeal, and substituted a penalty of five vacation days.

The Durham Regional Police Force applied to lift the statutory stay of a penalty ordering the appellant police officer to resign or be dismissed.

The appellant had been suspended with pay for nearly three years and was convicted of criminal offences, including obstruction of justice, as well as Police Act offences for corrupt practice and discreditable conduct.

The Commission exercised its discretion under s. 25 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act to lift the stay, citing the combination of the lengthy suspension, the serious nature of the criminal convictions striking at the heart of police duties, and the severity of the penalty imposed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of neglect of duty arising from his failure to properly acknowledge and accept an emergency dispatch call regarding a child with scissors stuck in her head.

Although the officer immediately drove toward the scene, he failed to activate the 'Accept Detail' button or advise the dispatcher, instead stating he was off shift in fifteen minutes.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the failure to properly acknowledge the call and proceed without hesitation in the prescribed manner constituted neglect of duty.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the penalty of forfeiture of 15 days' leave.

The charge arose from a telephone call where the officer was abrupt and unhelpful to a member of the public reporting a potential crime.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding the tape recording of the call provided ample evidence of inappropriate conduct.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against sentence in part, reducing the penalty to forfeiture of 5 days' leave, noting that while the officer's actions were relatively innocuous, his declining work record warranted more than a reprimand.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for deceit under the Police Services Act.

He was charged with negligently making an inaccurate statement in a report regarding an arrest, after failing to consult his notes.

The appellant argued the document was an unsigned draft and had not been formally submitted.

The Commission found the document was intended as a report and was placed in the system, upholding the conviction.

The penalty of forfeiting five days' pay was also upheld, given the seriousness of the inaccuracy in the context of responding to public criticism of the police force.

Constable Burgess appealed his convictions and dismissal for deceit and unnecessary exercise of authority under the Code of Discipline.

The charges arose from an incident where he used force to lift an uncooperative prisoner from a chair, resulting in an accidental injury, and subsequently filed an inaccurate Occurrence Report.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission admitted fresh evidence and quashed both convictions.

The Commission found the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and that, while the Occurrence Report was incomplete and inaccurate, there was no evidence of an intent to mislead or deceive.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for making an unnecessary arrest.

The officer had stopped a vehicle for excessive speeding and, due to safety concerns, ordered the three young occupants out of the car at gunpoint, pushed the driver to the ground, and searched them.

The hearing officer convicted the appellant and imposed a penalty of the loss of two days' pay.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding ample evidence to support it.

However, the Commission found the officer's conduct awful and the penalty insufficient, increasing the fine to the maximum permitted loss of five days' pay.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty imposed following his conviction on two counts of discreditable conduct.

The charges related to providing false information to investigating officers regarding a friend's bank deposit and falsely endorsing a passport application.

The hearing officer imposed a penalty of reduction in rank to Third Class Constable with conditions for reinstatement.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty modest given the serious nature of the offences, which could have justified dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty imposed following his guilty plea to discreditable conduct for an off-duty impaired driving conviction.

The officer, an admitted alcoholic who had since sought treatment, was reduced in rank to Fourth Class Constable (High) for six months.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty, noting the serious nature of drinking and driving offences and the change in public attitude, while acknowledging the officer's rehabilitative efforts and potential as mitigating factors.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of two days' leave for allegedly losing a portable radio due to negligence.

The appellant argued that the charge sheet was a nullity because it failed to properly identify the offence and the particulars did not allege any improper act or omission, contrary to Section 5(8)(b) of Regulation 791.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission agreed, finding the charge sheet deficient and the charge a nullity.

The previous proceedings were quashed.

Two off-duty police officers appealed their convictions and penalties (two and three days leave) for arresting a taxi driver for impaired driving without sufficient cause.

The officers claimed the driver showed signs of impairment, but on-duty officers found no evidence of impairment and a breath test was negative.

The hearing officer resolved the credibility issue against the officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the convictions, finding ample evidence to support the credibility finding.

The Commission confirmed the penalties, noting they considered increasing them but refrained because Force counsel did not seek an increase.

Two off-duty police officers appealed their convictions and penalties under the Police Act for arresting a taxi driver for impaired driving without sufficient cause.

The officers claimed the driver showed signs of impairment, but subsequent breath tests were negative and other officers found no evidence of impairment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Hearing Officer's credibility findings against the officers.

The Commission confirmed the penalties, noting it considered increasing them but refrained because Force counsel had not sought an increase.