Winfield McKay

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 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.

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 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 was convicted of discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary retail business without the consent of the Commissioner, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the business was a commercial venture extending beyond a hobby, and that the Commissioner reasonably exercised his discretion to deny consent.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's argument that the prohibition violated his rights under sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter, concluding that the limitation was reasonable and not discriminatory.

The appellants, two police constables, were convicted of neglect of duty for failing to attend court to assist with prosecutions.

They appealed the convictions, arguing that there was no written complaint or substitute document, which deprived the trial officer of jurisdiction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the objection to the lack of a written complaint was properly raised at the hearing de novo before the Board of Police Commissioners.

Following its own precedent, the Commission held that the absence of a written complaint was a fatal defect.

The appeals were allowed and the penalties were quashed.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed his conviction and sentence for insubordination under the Police Act.

He had been charged for leaving his residence without permission while off duty due to illness, contrary to Regulation 4.26.4.

The appellant argued that the regulation only applied during hours he would have been on duty, and since his scheduled shift had ended, he was not in breach.

The Commission found that the regulation was penal in nature and must be strictly interpreted.

Given the ambiguity of the regulation regarding off-duty hours, the Commission resolved the doubt in the appellant's favour, concluding he was not in breach.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.