W.T. McGrenere, Q.C.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank imposed for discreditable conduct following a conviction for common assault on a shoplifter.

The appellant argued the penalty was excessive, inconsistent with prior precedent, and failed to account for his exemplary record and the stress he was under.

The Commission found the reduction in rank too severe and inconsistent with earlier decisions, varying the penalty to a forfeiture of twelve days' leave.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed his convictions for making a false statement and discreditable conduct, as well as the resulting penalty, imposed by the Police Committee.

He argued that the officer who signed the charge sheet lacked authority and that the convictions were unsupported by evidence.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the officer who signed the charge sheet had been properly designated as Acting Chief and had the requisite authority.

The Commission declined to interfere with the trial tribunal's findings of credibility and fact.

Furthermore, while the Commission accepted medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from depression, it concluded this evidence did not justify altering the penalty.

The appellant police constable appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct.

The charge sheet alleged assault and threats of assault related to a private debt collection.

However, the conviction was ultimately based on the appellant attending a private home in uniform and driving a police cruiser to advance a private matter, after the assault allegations were not proven.

The Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that the charge sheet did not provide sufficient particulars to enable the appellant to prepare a defence for the specific conduct relied upon, rendering the process unfair.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed his conviction for neglect of duty after failing to report for a scheduled shift.

He argued that severe depression, rather than alcohol abuse, rendered him incapable of attending work and constituted a reasonable excuse.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence that alcohol abuse was the incapacitating factor.

The Commission noted that while alcoholism is an illness, it requires some volition and cannot be treated as an ordinary illness to justify a failure to perform duties without appropriate constraints imposed by the Force.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for carelessly causing damage to a police cruiser after he drove it off a second-story parking area.

The appellant claimed a defective floor mat interfered with the pedals, causing unintended acceleration.

Fresh evidence from a mechanic who experienced the same issue with the repaired vehicle was introduced on appeal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the fresh evidence corroborated the appellant's explanation and quashed the conviction.