W. Thomas McGrenere

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for insubordination and the resulting penalty of termination.

The officer had refused a direct order to walk a beat, citing medical problems with his legs, but provided no further explanation at the time.

The officer had previously arranged to work until he qualified for a disability pension but later refused to comply with the agreed-upon shift work.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge sheet defects were not fatal, the ordering officers were not fully aware of his medical limitations, and there was no denial of natural justice.

The penalty of termination was upheld given the officer's admitted inability to perform general police duties.

The appellant, an Ontario Provincial Police constable, appealed his conviction for 'Neglect of Duty' and the penalty of the loss of two days' pay.

While off duty, the appellant seized a pair of lead-lined gloves from individuals drinking beer, placed them in his locker, and failed to make any entries in the Occurrence Book, Daily Journal, or submit a property report for over a month.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Assistant Commissioner's conclusion was supported by the evidence and that the penalty was appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and sentence for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority after striking a prisoner during fingerprinting.

The appellant argued he anticipated an imminent assault and acted in self-defence.

The Commission upheld the presiding officer's finding that there were no reasonable and probable grounds to believe an assault was imminent, relying on the uncontradicted evidence of another officer present.

The appeal against the conviction and the sentence of forfeiture of four days off was dismissed.

The appellant police constable appealed a conviction for neglect of duty arising from an incident during crowd control at a football game.

The presiding officer found that the appellant failed to properly face the crowd as instructed, allowing disorderly individuals onto the field.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the presiding officer's conclusion that the appellant had not lived up to the duty imposed upon him.

The appellant, a Chief of Police, appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct arising from an off-duty incident at a curling bonspiel where he was intoxicated and acted boisterously.

The appellant argued that the disciplinary charge was statute-barred under s. 11 of the Public Authorities Protection Act because it was laid more than six months after the incident.

The Commission held that police officers have a statutory duty under the Police Act to be of good conduct, even when off duty, and therefore the six-month limitation period in the Public Authorities Protection Act applied to disciplinary proceedings for breaches of the Code of Offences.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

The appellant, an Ontario Provincial Police Corporal, appealed his convictions for discreditable conduct for engaging in off-duty snow-removal and driveway sealing businesses without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to s. 61 of Regulation 680 under The Police Act.

The appellant argued that the businesses did not constitute an 'occupation or calling' and that a memorandum of understanding permitted his conduct.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the businesses constituted another occupation and that The Police Act and its Regulations supersede any memorandum of understanding.

The appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed a conviction for being absent without leave from duty without reasonable excuse.

The respondent raised a preliminary motion challenging the Commission's jurisdiction due to an allegedly defective Notice of Appeal.

The Commission dismissed the preliminary motion, finding the Notice of Appeal was not a nullity and could be amended.

On the merits, the Commission found that the appellant had properly booked off sick according to standard practice.

Although the appellant was later seen at a Legion and appeared intoxicated to one witness, the Commission held that this conduct did not vitiate the leave obtained or support a conviction for being absent without leave.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.

The appellant, an Ontario Provincial Police Corporal, appealed his conviction for neglect of duty.

He had allowed an individual with an outstanding committal warrant extra time to pay a fine, in part to secure the individual's assistance in an ongoing investigation.

The Commission found that while the appellant had the discretion to grant a short extension of time, he failed to promptly and diligently follow up and execute the warrant when the time expired.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of forfeiture of two weekly rest days was upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for insubordination and deceit arising from his failure to file an occurrence report regarding a lost $1,000 bill and his subsequent denial of being the investigating officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that hearsay evidence corroborated by direct evidence was sufficient to prove the report was not filed, and that the appellant's claim of forgetting the incident was not credible.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for deceit under the Police Act.

The charge arose from an incident where the officer allegedly falsely claimed to be off duty on a court card in order to receive cash payment for his court attendance, while he was actually on overtime duty.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the conviction turned on credibility and there was sufficient evidence from the independent court clerk to support the hearing officer's decision.

The appellant police constable was convicted of insubordination for being late for duty and ordered to resign.

The conviction was quashed on consent due to a jurisdictional defect.

A fresh charge was laid and heard by the same Committee of Council, which again convicted the appellant.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Committee's rehearing of the matter violated the principles of natural justice and raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the appellant was entitled to a hearing before a tribunal that appeared impartial, and returned the matter for a rehearing, urging the designation of a judge.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of forfeiture of eight days off imposed after he pleaded guilty to a major charge of neglect of duty for being absent from court without reasonable excuse.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and inequitable.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was not unduly harsh given the appellant's record of thirteen prior instances of neglect of duty, and that the presiding officer properly considered the cumulative effect of these misdemeanours.

The appellant police constable appealed a decision regarding a charge under the Police Act.

Following submissions and upon the consent of both parties, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and ordered that the charge be remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision requiring him to resign or be summarily dismissed after pleading guilty to neglect of duty, deceit, and discreditable conduct.

The charges arose from an incident where the officer left his shift without permission to drive relatives to the US border, used his police identification to facilitate crossing, and subsequently falsified his duty book.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the convictions, rejecting the application of the Kienapple principle to disciplinary proceedings, and concluding the penalty was not excessive.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty of summary dismissal for discreditable conduct.

The constable had unnecessarily threatened to break a citizen's legs and invited him to fight while another officer was issuing a traffic ticket.

The Commission found sufficient evidence to support the Chief of Police's decision and upheld the penalty, noting the constable's 'vigilante' attitude.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and requiring his resignation or dismissal.

The charges arose from an incident where the appellant allegedly used profanity and made derogatory comments and threats regarding superior officers.

The appellant argued that the Chief of Police, who adjudicated the matter, was biased because he participated in the initial investigation and relied on extraneous matters not in evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the appellant's conduct was worthy of censure, the Chief's reliance on extraneous matters and deep involvement created an appearance of unfairness.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was returned for a rehearing.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and consuming intoxicating liquor while on duty.

The charges arose from an incident where the officers visited a tavern while on duty, and one officer danced nude on stage.

The appellants argued the convictions should be quashed because the exact date of the offence was not proven.

The Commission held that the failure to prove the exact date was not fatal, as the charges were explicit and the evidence was sufficient.

The Commission also upheld the penalties, finding the conduct destroyed trust and confidence in the officers.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

He had failed to promptly respond to a dispatch regarding speeding trucks, instead attempting to reassign the duty to another officer in an unauthorized manner.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the purported transfer of duties did not constitute a lawful excuse and that the appellant failed to promptly and diligently perform his assigned duty.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of the loss of three rest days was upheld.