W.T. McGrenere

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for Discreditable Conduct under the Police Act, which was based on a criminal conviction for pointing a firearm.

While the disciplinary appeal was pending, the underlying criminal conviction was quashed on appeal and an acquittal was entered.

The Commission allowed the disciplinary appeal and quashed the Discreditable Conduct conviction, as there were no longer any grounds to support it.

The Commission declined to award costs to the appellant, finding no statutory authority to do so.

Constable Roger Anderson appealed his convictions and punishment for 'Neglect of Duty' and 'Discreditable Conduct' arising from an incident where he seized a vial of hash oil and later produced it at a party with fellow officers.

The Commission found that the discipline process raised questions of apparent bias and fairness, particularly because other officers involved were not disciplined and outstanding criminal charges may have influenced the penalty.

The matter was returned for a re-hearing.

The Council for the Town of Picton appealed the 1981 budget submitted by the Board of Commissioners of Police, seeking to reduce the town's police force by one member due to high policing costs.

The Council relied on statistical evidence showing higher per capita costs and officer-to-population ratios compared to similar towns.

The Board presented evidence that Picton serves as a commercial and tourist hub for the county, justifying the nine-member force.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's position reasonable and concluding that the force should not be reduced.

Three Ontario Provincial Police constables appealed their convictions for 'Deceit' under the Police Act.

The officers had entered fictitious names on property occurrence reports for found property, acting on instructions from a superior officer to satisfy a computer system's requirements.

The Ontario Police Commission allowed the appeals and quashed the convictions, finding that the officers did not intend to deceive, received no benefit, and acted reasonably in following their superior's orders.