Wendy L. Calder

The appellant, a police constable, appealed his penalty of dismissal for discreditable conduct under the Police Act.

The charge arose after he was convicted of common assault following an altercation with a York Regional Police officer while attempting to retrieve property from his separated wife's residence.

The appellant argued against dismissal based on progressive discipline, the gap effect, and emotional stress from his marriage breakdown.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, noting the appellant's extensive prior disciplinary record, his refusal to accept psychiatric help, and his lack of remorse.

The Commission concluded that the appellant's pattern of behaviour and his actions in taking the law into his own hands rendered him incapable of continuing effectively as a police officer.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty of dismissal for discreditable conduct, arising from allegations that he engaged in sexual relations with prostitutes while working in the morality squad.

The appellant argued that the charge sheet was defective, that cross-examination was improperly restricted, and that the penalty was too harsh.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge sheet was valid, the restricted cross-examination involved irrelevant collateral matters, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the officer's conduct with members of the public with whom he had a professional relationship.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed his penalty of dismissal for discreditable conduct following a criminal conviction for common assault against another police officer.

The assault occurred during a domestic dispute when the appellant attempted to seize property from his separated wife's residence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the dismissal, noting the appellant's extensive prior disciplinary record, his refusal to accept medical or psychological help, and his inability to carry on effectively as a police officer given the high standard of conduct required.

The appellant, a police officer with 21 years of unblemished service, appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct.

While off duty, the appellant was observed switching price tags on a stereo at a retail store, resulting in him paying a lower price.

He was subsequently convicted of fraud under the Criminal Code and received a conditional discharge.

At the disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty and ordered to resign or be dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding the appellant's actions were intentional and out of character.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, concluding that dismissal was too severe given the appellant's long, unblemished record and strong community support.

The penalty was varied to a loss of 20 days' pay.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision requiring him to resign or be summarily dismissed for discreditable conduct.

He had been found carrying a loaded firearm for hunting at night and in possession of an open bottle of liquor in his vehicle.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the charges and noting that the incident was the culminating event in a series of prior infractions, demonstrating a wilful disregard for the law.

The appellant police constable appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and a penalty of two weekly rest days.

The charge arose from the appellant causing Bell Canada to place tracing equipment on a telephone without notifying the local police authority or properly concluding the investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the appellant's actions caused some irritation to Bell Canada personnel and demonstrated poor judgment, they did not amount to a major offence of discreditable conduct.

The appeal was sustained and the charge was dismissed.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was involved in an incident at his son's hockey game and began investigating it.

His superior ordered him to cease his involvement and turn the matter over to the local police force.

The appellant continued to interview witnesses and have statements typed at the police station.

He was convicted of disobeying a lawful order and received an admonition.

On appeal, he argued his actions were personal and not part of his police function.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that he was acting as a police officer and could not indirectly do what he was ordered not to do.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and sentence for discreditable conduct relating to the improper discharge of a firearm.

During a high-speed chase, the officer set up a roadblock and fired a single shot into the radiator of a vehicle speeding directly toward him.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the officer acted on reasonable and probable grounds in fear for his life.

The Commission emphasized that the officer's conduct must be assessed based on the split-second circumstances he faced, rather than in hindsight.

The conviction and punishment were quashed.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for neglect of duty after failing to attend court as required.

He argued the proceedings were a nullity, the charge was improperly elevated to a major offence, and there was undue delay in hearing the appeal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals against conviction, finding the officer missed his court appearance without reasonable excuse.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty from forfeiture of two days' pay to two days off.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of admonition following a conviction for neglect of duty for failing to attend court as a witness.

The appellant argued that the Board of Commissioners erred in refusing a voir dire regarding his statement and in holding that Section 7 of the Charter did not apply to police discipline hearings.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that police discipline is an administrative internal process to which Section 7 of the Charter does not apply.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary occupation (operating a sporting goods store) without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued the regulation was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, relying on its previous decisions rejecting the same Charter arguments, and confirmed the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his involvement in secondary employment without the consent of the Commissioner, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued that section 61 was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty, relying on its previous decisions which rejected identical Charter challenges to the regulation.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary occupation (operating a farm feed store) without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued the regulation was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

Relying on a previous decision involving the same arguments, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct for engaging in secondary employment as a painter without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued the regulation was discriminatory, violated common law, and infringed sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, relying on its previous decisions upholding the regulation, and confirmed the penalty of forfeiture of three days' vacation.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty of three forfeited vacation days for engaging in secondary employment without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to Section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued that the regulation was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission rejected the Charter arguments, relying on its previous decisions, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty.