Zahra Dhanani

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for insubordination after discharging his firearm at a fleeing vehicle, contrary to a Toronto Police Service procedure.

The appellant argued he had a lawful excuse due to an honest, subjective belief that his life was in imminent danger.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that a lawful excuse requires both a subjective belief and objectively reasonable actions.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the appellant's actions were not objectively reasonable, as he had removed himself from the imminent threat before firing.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing misconduct charges against two police officers for allegedly making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The appellant had been arrested for wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence after officers observed him wearing an orange bandana over his face.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges based entirely on finding the appellant not credible, without analyzing the legal elements of a lawful arrest under the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons inadequate, as they failed to address whether the officers had subjective and objective reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing before a different Hearing Officer.

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 Chief of Police pled guilty to discreditable conduct after cancelling two Provincial Offence Notices issued to a city councillor for running a red light and failing to produce valid insurance.

The Chief cancelled the tickets without consulting the issuing officer or following proper procedures.

The Commission determined that the conduct undermined the rule of law and the fair administration of justice.

Balancing the Chief's exemplary employment record against the need for general deterrence, the Commission ordered a penalty of forfeiture of 5 days of work or 40 hours of pay.

Following a finding of misconduct against Mayor Daryl Bennett for his actions as a member of the Peterborough Lakefield Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission determined the appropriate penalty.

The Commission rejected the argument that it lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty due to the disbandment of the Board, finding that a liberal interpretation of the Police Services Act required accountability for past conduct to maintain public confidence.

Given the severity of the misconduct, which included undermining the Board and the Chief of Police, and the lack of remorse, the Commission ordered that Mayor Bennett be removed from the Board.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of Chief John Gauthier of the Timmins Police Service.

The investigation concerned the Chief's decision to cancel Provincial Offence Notices issued to a city councillor for a red light infraction and failing to produce valid insurance.

Chief Gauthier pled guilty to the amended allegation of acting in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Service.

The Commission accepted the guilty plea, found him guilty of discreditable conduct, and adjourned the matter to hear evidence and submissions regarding penalty.

The Durham Regional Police Association and the Senior Officers' Association applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to determine whether a Durham College employee, seconded to the Durham Regional Police Service as Dean of the Police Education and Innovation Centre, was an employee of the Service and thus a member of the Senior Officers' Association.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the clear language of the secondment agreement established the individual remained an employee of the College, despite performing senior leadership duties at the Service.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of dismissal (seven days to resign or be terminated) imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of Insubordination, two counts of Discreditable Conduct, and one count of Breach of Confidence.

The misconduct involved unauthorized access to police databases to obtain confidential information about an acquaintance's criminal investigation and sharing that information with a civilian.

The officer was also convicted criminally of Breach of Trust by a Public Official.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision on penalty was reasonable, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and was proportional to the egregious nature of the misconduct.

Chief Gauthier, charged with discreditable conduct for allegedly withdrawing traffic tickets issued to a city councillor, brought a motion for further disclosure and particulars from the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the administrative law standard for disclosure had been met.

The Notice of Hearing, combined with the 48-page investigative report and extensive evidentiary disclosure, provided sufficient particulars for the Chief to know the case he had to meet.

The Commission is not required to provide its legal strategy, research, or point to the exact pieces of evidence it intends to rely upon at the hearing.

The appellant police officer was suspended with pay and ordered by the Chief of Police to disclose his income and hours worked from secondary employment.

The officer refused, arguing that because his secondary employment commenced prior to his suspension, he was exempt from reporting under section 89(8) of the Police Services Act.

He was convicted of insubordination at a disciplinary hearing.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding that section 89(8) does not excuse an officer from complying with a lawful order of the Chief to disclose secondary employment information, which the Chief is entitled to request to ensure the officer is not engaged in full-time employment for another person.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of Daryl Bennett, Mayor of Peterborough and member of the Peterborough-Lakefield Police Services Board.

The Commission investigated 11 allegations of misconduct, including leaking confidential personnel complaints, attempting to negotiate the police budget directly with the Chief, publicly criticizing the Chief's operational decisions, and making disparaging remarks about the Board and the Commission.

The Commission found that all 11 allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities.

The Commission rejected the Mayor's arguments that his role as Mayor superseded his obligations as a Board member and that his Charter rights to free expression shielded him from the Code of Conduct.

The Commission concluded that Mayor Bennett breached sections 2, 5, 6, 8, and 13 of the Code of Conduct and was guilty of misconduct.

Constable Mulholland appealed the penalty imposed by a Hearing Officer for multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, insubordination, discreditable conduct, and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a demotion with conditions, which the appellant argued was harsh and excessive given his diagnoses of PTSD and substance abuse.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the penalty factors, including the seriousness of the multiple acts of misconduct and the mitigating medical evidence, and that the penalty did not violate the duty to accommodate.

The Appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of 36 counts of misconduct, including unauthorized CPIC and NICHE searches, and imposing a penalty of dismissal.

The Appellant raised 12 grounds of appeal, alleging apprehension of bias, procedural unfairness, evidentiary errors, and an unduly harsh penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's decisions on fact and credibility were reasonable, there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate and consistent with similar cases of unauthorized database access.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that dismissed charges of neglect of duty against two police officers.

The officers had investigated a fatal motor vehicle collision involving a pedestrian and declined to demand an approved screening device (ASD) sample from the driver, despite the driver's admission to consuming one or two beers earlier in the evening.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that the officers did not have a reasonable suspicion that the driver had alcohol in his body at the time of the accident, as there were no physical indicia of alcohol consumption or impairment.

The Commission concluded that the officers reasonably exercised their discretion under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a police officer with 26 years of service, appealed a disciplinary hearing decision finding him guilty of insubordination and imposing a penalty of 8 hours forfeiture of pay.

The officer had been ordered by his supervisor via text message to remain at his desk during his shift because he was working alone, but he disobeyed the order and went out on surveillance.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions on guilt, credibility, and penalty were reasonable and supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed two penalty decisions ordering her dismissal from the police service.

The first penalty arose from findings of breach of confidence and discreditable conduct for disclosing confidential accident locations to a tow truck operator and offering to help withdraw a traffic ticket.

The second penalty arose from a finding of deceit for lying to investigators during a compelled interview regarding the first matter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld both dismissal penalties, finding that the hearing officers properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the officer's short employment history, prior discipline, and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The moving party, a police sergeant, brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of his first appeal regarding 36 counts of misconduct and a penalty of dismissal, and to join it with a second appeal regarding two additional counts of misconduct.

The respondent police service opposed the motion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the motion, finding that joining the complex appeals would unduly complicate and delay the proceedings, particularly given the moving party was self-represented and the first appeal had already experienced significant delays.

The Commission ordered the first appeal to proceed as scheduled.

The appellant police officer sought to introduce new medical evidence and internal correspondence regarding his post-disposition work performance on his appeal of a disciplinary demotion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and dismissed the motion.

The Commission found that the medical evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the penalty hearing, and that post-disposition work performance was not relevant where the penalty imposed was demotion rather than dismissal.

At the beginning of an appeal hearing, the appellant police officer filed a second Notice of Appeal.

After discussion with counsel, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission ordered that the two appeals be heard together pursuant to Rule 3.3 of its Rules of Practice.

The Commission set a schedule for the delivery of factums, records, and supporting materials, and scheduled the joint hearing.

The moving party, a police officer found guilty of misconduct and ordered dismissed, brought a motion to extend the time to perfect his disciplinary appeal to the Commission until the conclusion of parallel criminal proceedings arising from the same incident.

The officer had been convicted of sexual assault but had not yet been sentenced and intended to appeal.

The Commission granted the motion on consent, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's direction in Toronto v. C.U.P.E. Local 79 that lower tribunals should await the outcome of criminal proceedings dealing with the same facts to avoid collateral attacks and inconsistent verdicts.