Winston Tinglin

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from his failure to properly investigate a wellness check on two vulnerable women, one of whom was later found deceased in their home.

The officer had driven by the residence but did not exit his vehicle or knock on the door, assuming the house was abandoned.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the officer failed in his common law duty to protect life and safety and lacked a lawful excuse for his lack of diligence.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit under the Police Services Act Code of Conduct and demoting him to third-class constable.

The deceit charge arose from the appellant recording on three Provincial Offence Notices that he had used a LIDAR device to measure speed, when he had actually used RADAR or paced the vehicles.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the appellant intended to deceive was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating the appellant's fabricated testimony as an aggravating factor and by penalizing him for an uncharged intent to mislead the courts.

The penalty was varied to a demotion to second-class constable for six months, and to first-class constable thereafter.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of forfeiture of 80 hours imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved transporting his family in an OPP vehicle without authorization and being less than forthcoming during the subsequent investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made an overriding error in principle by accepting a guilty plea based on the appellant driving a short distance, but then using a factual finding that the appellant drove the entire four-hour trip as an aggravating factor to increase the penalty.

The Commission varied the penalty to a forfeiture of 60 hours, finding it more reasonable given the actual basis of the conviction and the mitigating factors, including the appellant's exemplary employment history.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for speaking at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization while off-duty, contrary to a direct order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under section 49(1) of the Police Services Act.

However, the Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction, ruling that the Hearing Officer erred by applying a subjective test rather than an objective reasonable person test to assess whether the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct.

The conviction arose from a sarcastic internal report the appellant wrote criticizing an order to conduct a missing person investigation, which he believed was a conflict of interest.

The Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Hearing Officer.

However, the Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct was unreasonable, as the appellant's conduct should have been treated as a performance issue rather than misconduct.

The conviction was revoked.

The appellant, a police officer, was transferred and had 200 hours removed from his vacation bank after an investigation into unapproved overtime.

The respondent conceded the transfers were disciplinary but had not held a hearing under the Police Services Act.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction over disguised discipline despite the lack of a first instance hearing.

It directed the Commissioner of the OPP to hold a hearing regarding the transfers, but held that the vacation bank dispute was a payroll matter to be resolved through the collective agreement grievance process.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing her from the Windsor Police Service after she was found guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from an incident where the appellant failed to declare alcohol at the US-Canada border, repeatedly lied to border officers, and subsequently sought to use her position to exact revenge on the border officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding that the appellant's consistent pattern of deceit, lack of remorse, and retaliatory conduct outweighed her positive employment history and irreparably damaged her ability to function as a police officer and the reputation of the police service.

The Midland Police Services Board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to reduce its civilian staff by terminating eight civilian radio operators and outsourcing dispatch and communications services to the Owen Sound Police Service.

The Commission held a public meeting to hear from the Board, the Midland Police Association, affected employees, and the public.

The Commission found that the proposed outsourcing would maintain adequate and effective policing in Midland, noting the modern facilities and successful track record of the Owen Sound communications centre.

As the parties reached a settlement regarding severance for the affected employees, the Commission consented to the application.

The Appellant, an off-duty police officer, removed mulch from a school property without permission and subsequently misled the investigating officer.

He was found guilty of discreditable conduct and demoted from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for one year.

He appealed the finding of guilt and the penalty to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decisions on credibility, admission of hearsay evidence, and penalty were reasonable and supported by clear and cogent evidence.