W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C.

The Chief of Police was charged with two disciplinary offences under the Police Services Act.

The first charge, alleging he allowed unauthorized persons in a police vehicle, was quashed for failing to disclose an offence and lacking sufficient particulars.

The second charge, alleging neglect of duty for failing to provide backup during an emergency, was dismissed after a hearing.

The Commission found the Chief was engaged in an assigned duty leading a parade, was not requested by dispatch to assist, and did not contravene standard police procedures.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of demotion to the salary level of a Probationary Constable after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for touching a female officer's breast while off duty and intoxicated.

The appellant argued the penalty was too severe given his positive performance appraisals and the circumstances.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the off-duty status and intoxication were not mitigating factors, and that the penalty imposed was the least acceptable penalty for the conduct.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct and ordered to resign or be summarily dismissed after verbally abusing a civilian driver during a traffic altercation.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirmed the conviction, finding that off-duty conduct can bring discredit to the police force.

However, the Commission found the penalty of dismissal too severe given the appellant's 11-year service record and the fact that related criminal charges were still pending, which limited the evidence available regarding the full incident.

The penalty was reduced to a demotion from First Class Constable to Fourth Class Constable.

The Vanier Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for a ruling that court security costs should not be included in the cost-sharing formula under its policing agreement with the Ottawa Police Services Board, and for repayment of past amounts.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction to interpret the agreement but not to order repayment.

On the merits, the Commission ruled that the broad definition of operating costs in the agreement included the newly imposed statutory costs of providing court security.

The appellant, a police constable appealing a conviction for deceit, brought a preliminary motion requesting that a Commission member disqualify himself on the ground of perceived bias.

The motion was based on a newspaper article written by the member criticizing the Special Investigations Unit, and a letter from the Police Association of Ontario expressing a lack of confidence in the member.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would not conclude that the member had a bias that would impede his ability to decide the appeal objectively and impartially.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his convictions and penalty of immediate dismissal for discreditable conduct after he assaulted a police sergeant and used abusive language at a police station.

The Commission upheld the assault conviction, finding the appellant's intoxication did not negate the general intent required.

However, the Commission struck one count of discreditable conduct as duplicitous.

On penalty, the Commission found the hearing officer failed to give appropriate weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's 19 years of service and his efforts to address his alcohol consumption.

The penalty of dismissal was set aside and replaced with a reduction in rank to Third Class Constable.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after he refused a lawful order to provide his residential address to the Force.

He argued the charge should be quashed due to a three-month delay in scheduling the appeal, that the Force failed to comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that he had a lawful excuse because his wife had previously been harassed by another officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the delay was not undue, the Force had complied with the privacy legislation, and the harassment claim was not raised at the time of the order and did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The conviction and penalty of forfeiture of two days' leave were upheld.

The appellant, a police constable, was convicted of a disciplinary offence for refusing a lawful order to patrol outside the Morgentaler Clinic, citing his religious beliefs against abortion.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the order to keep the peace did not violate his Charter rights or constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code, as a constable's duty to preserve the peace must be performed impartially regardless of personal conscience.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, reducing it to a demotion in rank, noting the appellant's good service record and his undertaking to obey lawful orders in the future.

The appellant, a First Class Constable, appealed a decision of the Board of Commissioners of Police discharging him due to a purported mental disability.

The appellant had suffered a series of jaw injuries and experienced fear and anxiety about potential reinjury.

The Commission found that under Section 27(e) of Regulation 791, a discharge for mental disability must be supported by the evidence of two legally qualified medical practitioners.

The medical evidence presented did not support a finding of mental disability, as both doctors indicated his fear was a normal and justified reaction to his previous trauma.

The Commission quashed the discharge and ordered the appellant reinstated.

The Commission also noted that under the Human Rights Code, the employer bears the onus of establishing that the appellant's physical disability could not be accommodated without undue hardship.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty arising from his handling of an incident involving an off-duty officer.

The appellant had instructed his junior officers to prepare reports but chose not to confront the off-duty officer at his home in the early morning hours, opting instead to verify the home was quiet and report to his superior later.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that the appellant properly exercised his discretion and investigated the matter with due diligence given the circumstances.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty requiring him to resign or be summarily dismissed after pleading guilty to multiple counts of misconduct, including insubordination and neglect of duty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission first ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to admit new evidence of post-hearing conduct absent special circumstances, and that it could not impose penalties outside the prescribed statutory scheme.

On the merits, the Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the appellant's alcoholism, his extensive prior disciplinary record and psychological assessments indicating an inability to function as a First Class Constable justified the termination of his employment.

An application was brought to determine whether the secretary to the chief of police and the secretary to the deputy chief of police of the Brockville Police Force are "senior officers" under Section 30 of the Police Act.

The Ontario Police Commission found that the secretary to the chief of police qualifies as a senior officer because her duties involve highly confidential matters related to budget preparation, negotiations, and discipline.

However, the Commission ruled that the secretary to the deputy chief of police does not qualify as a senior officer, as it is not necessary for the good management of the force for her to be privy to such confidential information, which could be handled by the chief's secretary.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions and penalties from two separate disciplinary trials.

In the first trial, he was reduced in rank for neglect of duty after failing to meet performance appraisal objectives over a twelve-month period.

The Commission found the objectives were reasonable and did not constitute an illegal order.

In the second trial, he was ordered to resign or be dismissed for neglect of duty and deceit related to failing to follow up on an investigation and falsely reporting its status to dispose of evidence.

The Commission dismissed both appeals, upholding the convictions and penalties.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of forced resignation or dismissal after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for shoplifting items worth approximately $70.

The appellant presented psychiatric evidence that he was under severe stress due to his own battle with Hodgkin's disease and his father's serious illness.

The Commission accepted that the stress explained, but did not excuse, the conduct, and upheld the finding of guilt.

However, considering the appellant's 18 years of unblemished service and his mental turmoil, the Commission found dismissal too severe.

The penalty was varied to a reduction in rank from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for at least six months.