Winfield C. McKay

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, 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 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 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 was convicted of narcotics offences and subsequently dismissed from the police force.

He appealed his dismissal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing that the disciplinary hearing should have been adjourned pending his criminal appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and that suspension rather than termination was the appropriate penalty in the interim.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation to stay Police Act proceedings pending a criminal appeal, and holding that the police force should not be prejudiced by having to maintain a convicted officer on its complement.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed his conviction and penalty of forfeiture of 10 days off for being unfit for duty through drinking intoxicating liquor.

The appellant argued that the presiding officer failed to consider evidence of his innocence and improperly assessed evidence of fitness for duty, claiming the odour of alcohol was from beer spilled on his uniform.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence of alcohol consumption, including bloodshot eyes and an agitated manner, and confirmed the conviction and penalty.

The appellant, a police constable with over ten years of service, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed for neglect of duty, deceit, and insubordination.

The appellant had left his designated patrol area, made false entries in his notebook, and failed to submit a comprehensive report as ordered.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, finding that dismissal was too severe given the appellant's unblemished record and in comparison with penalties applied by other forces.

The penalty was reduced to a reduction in grade from first to second class constable for twelve months.

The appellant police officer was convicted of insubordination for disobeying an order to cease physical involvement in a secondary business (an outfitters store).

On appeal, the officer argued that he was merely counselled, not ordered, and challenged the authority to give such an order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the written memorandum and subsequent telephone conversation constituted a clear order to comply with the law regarding secondary employment.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of a reprimand was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of admonition for neglect of duty after failing to attend court.

He argued that he had a reasonable excuse because his daughter was seriously ill, and that his testimony was ultimately not required.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge was substantiated and that the penalty of admonition already reflected fair consideration of his reasons for failing to attend.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for driving under the influence of alcohol.

The appellant argued the penalty was excessive and failed to account for his alcoholism, rehabilitation efforts, and unblemished record.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the Force's support and counselling, the appellant's deliberate preparations for a drinking spree while en route to an alcohol clinic demonstrated a lack of intent to reform, justifying the severe penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty imposed following his guilty plea to a charge of discreditable conduct.

The officer had been involved in a fight while off-duty, was ejected from a building, and used abusive language towards two uniformed officers.

The Hearing Officer initially imposed a penalty of reduction in rank from first to second class constable for one year, which the Board of Commissioners of Police subsequently reduced to six months.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the mitigated penalty was not unreasonable and that it should not substitute its judgment for that of the Hearing Officer and Board where all relevant matters were fairly considered.

Two police officers appealed their convictions for neglect of duty for failing to attend court.

The convictions were initially made by the Chief of Police and confirmed by the Board of Commissioners of Police.

On appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, the officers argued that there was no written complaint initiating the proceedings.

Following previous decisions, the Commission held that the lack of a written complaint is a fatal jurisdictional defect when raised at the proper time.

The appeals were allowed and the penalties quashed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of nine days off for neglect of duty.

The officer had left his assigned post at a bank stake-out to go to a nearby store, during which time an attempted robbery occurred.

The Commission found that while the officer had a good record and was highly regarded, the penalty was appropriate given the potential consequences of his absence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and punishment for a minor charge of deceit under the Police Act.

The charge arose from an inaccurate entry in his daily journal regarding a roadside breath test.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that intent is a necessary ingredient for a charge of deceit, and the evidence established that the appellant did not intend to deceive anyone.

The appellant, an Ontario Provincial Police officer, appealed a finding of discreditable conduct.

While on duty in uniform, the officer engaged in a conversation with two occupants of a parked vehicle and used inappropriate language, including a joking remark about shooting the male occupant.

The incident became public knowledge through a newspaper article.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the words spoken by the officer on duty in uniform constituted discreditable conduct.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct under the Police Act.

The charge was based on his criminal conviction for corruptly attempting to obtain a valuable consideration.

The appellant argued that the Police Act proceedings were premature because his criminal conviction was under appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that a lower court's judgment has implications even while under appeal, and that Police Act proceedings need not await the exhaustion of all criminal appeal avenues.