W.T. McGrenere

The appellant, an OPP Corporal, appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of twenty days' leave.

The conviction arose from his taking possession of a seized shotgun from another officer, allegedly knowing or ought to have known it was seized in a criminal investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found sufficient evidence to support the trial officer's conclusions on both conviction and penalty, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the termination of his employment by the Board of Commissioners of Police.

The termination was based on a physical disability—an inherited blood clotting disorder requiring anti-coagulant medication—which placed him at a high risk of fatal hemorrhage if he sustained trauma.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's preliminary motion to introduce new evidence, finding it was available prior to the initial hearing.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the termination, concluding that the medical evidence supported the finding that the appellant was incapable of performing his duties safely, and that the Board could not condone the assumption of such a high risk of harm.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his alleged association with a known criminal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the charge sheet was sufficiently particularized and the evidence established an association between the appellant and the individual, the prosecution failed to prove that the individual was a 'known criminal' at the relevant time.

The Commission held that the appellant's failure to run a CPIC check did not amount to wilful blindness.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and penalty were quashed.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed a conviction for insubordination arising from the accidental discharge of his service revolver in a police station washroom.

The charge alleged he neglected to carry out a lawful order to exercise the utmost care in handling firearms.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the incident being an accident and the officer having a physical handicap in his right hand, there was sufficient evidence that he failed to exercise the required utmost care.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed a decision of the regional board of commissioners of police upholding his dismissal from the force.

The appellant argued that the Chief of Police's conduct during the initial hearing raised a reasonable apprehension of bias, citing the Chief's acquaintance with the appellant's mother-in-law, the handling of a missing notebook, and an alleged statement in the transcript that there would be 'no use of appeal.' The Commission found no evidence of bias, accepted an affidavit correcting the transcript error, and held that the missing notebook was not crucial evidence.

The Commission also granted a motion to amend an incorrect date on the charge sheet, finding no prejudice to the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing an order from a Staff Sergeant to work overtime at the end of his shift.

The appellant argued that the Staff Sergeant only had authority to ask for volunteers or to order off-duty officers in an emergency.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the rules and regulations provided lawful authority for a superior officer to order an officer to work overtime when their services are deemed necessary.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing to obey an order to trim his moustache to comply with personal appearance regulations.

The appellant argued the regulation was unlawful, discriminatorily enforced, and that his reassignment to menial tasks prior to the hearing constituted double jeopardy.

The majority of the Commission dismissed the appeal.

The dissenting member would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the appellant's reassignment to menial tasks amounted to punishment prior to formal conviction, thus constituting double jeopardy.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing an order to trim his moustache to comply with the force's personal appearance regulations.

The appellant argued the regulation was unlawful, discriminatorily enforced, and that his reassignment to menial tasks prior to the hearing constituted double jeopardy.

The majority of the Commission dismissed the appeal.

In dissenting reasons, one member found that the appellant's reassignment to menial tasks amounted to punishment before formal conviction and would have allowed the appeal on the ground of double jeopardy.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for neglect of duty and the penalty of forfeiture of two days' pay.

The officer had failed to attend court as a witness after reporting sick, without informing his supervisor of his court commitment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that officers have a duty to communicate their inability to attend court to the proper person when reporting sick.

However, due to the unusual nature of the charge, the Commission reduced the penalty to the forfeiture of one day's leave.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed convictions for insubordination arising from three exchanges with a superior officer.

The first charge had been dismissed at trial.

On appeal, the Commission allowed the appeal on the second charge, finding the evidence unclear as to when the disobedience occurred since the superior had acquiesced to the appellant's request for more time.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the third charge, finding that the appellant's manner of speaking to his superior, which included profanity and complaints about being put in a difficult position, was insolent, rebellious, and disrespectful.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for damage to equipment under the Police Act after losing control of his cruiser during a high-speed pursuit and striking a hydro pole.

He argued that the evidence did not support a finding of carelessness and that the charge was void because no written complaint was proven at trial.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the facts of the accident alone were sufficient to establish carelessness in the absence of an explanation at trial.

The Commission also held that the appellant's failure to demand production of the written complaint at the inception of the trial constituted an acceptance of the trial officer's jurisdiction.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of dangerous driving following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

He was subsequently charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Act and sentenced to resign or be summarily dismissed.

On appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, the appellant argued that the charge sheet was a nullity because it was signed by an officer who was not properly designated under the Police Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that the power to sign the charge sheet could not be delegated as a purely administrative task, and dismissed the charge.

In the alternative, the Commission held that the penalty of dismissal was too severe given the appellant's excellent prior record and reduced the penalty to a reduction in rank for 18 months.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and sentence for discreditable conduct after using profane and insulting language toward a civilian clerk.

The appellant argued the charge was improperly laid under subsection 1(a)(i) of the Code of Offences because the conduct did not occur in public.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that public discredit is not a required element of the offence and that internal discredit to the reputation of the police force is sufficient.

The penalty was upheld given the appellant's previous record.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for neglect of duty under the Police Act.

The charge arose from an incident where the officer responded to a call about a potentially impaired driver whose vehicle was partially in a ditch.

Despite observations from two tow truck drivers indicating the motorist was impaired, the officer concluded the driver was merely tired and arranged for him to be towed home without conducting further tests.

The Commission found that the circumstances ought to have aroused the officer's suspicion and required further inquiry.

The conviction for neglect of duty was upheld.

The appellant, a police constable convicted of deceit and dismissed from the force, applied for an order declaring that a letter sent by the Police Association requesting an extension of time to file an appeal constituted a valid Notice of Appeal under Regulation 791 of the Police Act.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the application, finding that the letter explicitly requested an extension of time and could not be construed as a Notice of Appeal itself.

The appellant, a police constable and president of the local police association, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct.

The conviction arose after he forwarded incomplete and potentially misleading documentation regarding internal force issues directly to the Ontario Police Commission, bypassing the local Board of Commissioners of Police.

The Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, holding that as a matter of policy, police associations must be free to approach the Commission for advice and assistance without fear of disciplinary prosecution, even if the approach was premature or imprudent.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Board of Commissioners of Police affirming his conviction for assaulting a fellow officer and varying his penalty from dismissal to a reduction in rank.

The appellant argued the assault was trivial, the Board erred in considering his past record, and the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding sufficient evidence of an assault intended to intimidate.

The Commission varied the penalty by imposing a nine-month time limit on the reduction in rank, holding that an indefinite reduction improperly delegated the ultimate penalty decision.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed his convictions and penalty for two major charges of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority arising from an incident where he struck a civilian.

He argued that procedural errors invalidated the proceedings, the convictions were contrary to the evidence, the Board exhibited bias, and the penalty was unduly harsh.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the appeals against conviction, finding that the procedural irregularities did not prejudice the defence, the Board's credibility findings were sound, and there was no evidence of bias.

However, the Commission varied the penalty from an open-ended reduction in rank to a fixed three-month reduction in rank from first-class to second-class constable, noting that immediate implementation of the penalty was contrary to Section 27 of Regulation 791.

The appellant, an Ontario Provincial Police constable, appealed his conviction for deceit and the resulting penalty of resignation or dismissal.

The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant's undercover vehicle was involved in a hit-and-run accident, and he subsequently made an unsigned, false entry in the detachment's Occurrence Book to conceal the vehicle's involvement.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the evidence supported the conclusion that the entry was made to deceive and interfere with the investigation.

The penalty was also upheld, as the appellant's actions constituted a severe breach of trust that compromised his integrity.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for being unfit for duty through drinking intoxicating liquor.

The conviction was based solely on the odour of alcohol on his breath when he reported for duty.

The Commission found that while an officer could be judged unfit for duty because of alcohol emanating from his breath, the evidence in this case fell short of demonstrating unfitness, especially given the absence of other signs of impairment and the superior officer's failure to exercise discretion to counsel the officer.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.