Zahra Dhanani

During a hearing into the conduct of a police services board member, the Commission sought to introduce three new factual matters as particulars of an existing allegation of making disparaging remarks.

The member brought a motion to declare the new matters inadmissible, arguing they were new allegations that amounted to an abuse of process and a breach of natural justice because they were raised after the hearing had commenced.

The Panel dismissed the motion, finding that the new matters were merely additional particulars that did not require amending the Notice of Hearing, and that the Commission had provided full disclosure with ample time for the member to prepare a response.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to rule on the appellant's motion for a stay of proceedings based on abuse of process.

The Commission determined that the deliberate merging of the internal disciplinary investigation and the criminal investigation, which used regulatory powers to compel evidence for the criminal probe, constituted an egregious abuse of process and a violation of the appellant's Charter rights.

The Commission set aside the Hearing Officer's decision and ordered a stay of proceedings on all counts.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion to amend a Notice of Hearing to add two new allegations against the respondent, a member of a police services board.

The respondent opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking conditions if the amendment was granted.

The Commission granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondent as no evidence had yet been adduced, and ordered that the respondent would not be required to lead evidence before a specified date.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his conviction for insubordination arising from an off-duty traffic stop.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in her definition of a 'traffic stop' and in her assessment of the evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's definition of a traffic stop was reasonable and that her conclusion that the appellant's actions constituted an off-duty traffic stop in violation of police policy was supported by the evidence.

The applicant, a civilian manager of the Niagara Regional Police Service's Video Unit, applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to be classified as a senior officer under s. 116 of the Police Services Act.

The application was opposed by the Niagara Regional Police Association.

The Commission applied the factors from the Metro Toronto Police Association decision to determine if the applicant was employed in a supervisory or confidential capacity under s. 114.

Finding that the applicant exercised significant responsibility, initiative, and supervisory duties over his unit and the Ontario Police Video Training Alliance, the Commission granted the application and ordered that he be classified as a senior officer.

The respondent, a member of a police services board, brought four preliminary motions seeking to stay or dismiss the proceedings against him.

He argued that the Commission failed to provide a motion record, that the Notice of Hearing lacked sufficient particulars, that there was a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias due to the Commission's dual investigative and adjudicative roles, and that he was entitled to transcripts from a separate proceeding.

The Commission dismissed all four motions, finding that no motion record was required for an investigation initiated on its own motion, the Notice of Hearing provided reasonable information of the allegations, the Commission's statutory structure and recusal policy prevented institutional bias, and there was no basis to order the disclosure of transcripts from an unrelated hearing.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion imposed by a Hearing Officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer was biased, the prosecutor was unfair, and that it was fundamentally unfair to proceed with the hearing in his absence while he was on long-term disability.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias or prosecutorial unfairness.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer was legally correct to request medical information to substantiate the need for further adjournments and acted reasonably in proceeding in the appellant's absence after numerous delays and a persistent lack of cooperation.

The penalty of demotion was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant, a public complainant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding two respondent police officers not guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The appellant alleged prosecutorial misconduct, Hearing Officer bias, and errors in findings of fact and credibility.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, noting the appellant waived his right to allege bias by not raising it during the hearing, and concluding the Hearing Officer's factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant brought a motion to adduce new evidence on appeal, specifically transcripts from his criminal trial, and requested that the respondent police service acquire and provide them.

The appellant had previously declined to obtain or use the transcripts during the disciplinary hearing.

Applying the Palmer test, the Commission found that the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing with due diligence.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision imposing a demotion in rank for assisting another officer in cheating on three separate promotional examinations using electronic communication equipment.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended the evidence regarding her motivation, failed to properly weigh case law, and imposed a harsh and excessive penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, transparent, and fell within the acceptable range of outcomes for the serious misconduct committed.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The officer had arrested a motorist for breach of the peace during a traffic stop after the motorist became agitated and argumentative.

The Hearing Officer found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest, as the motorist's behaviour did not pose an imminent risk of harm or breach of the peace.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review, upheld the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and credibility, and affirmed the penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours of work.

The appellant, a police sergeant, brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on his appeal of a discreditable conduct finding and demotion penalty.

The appellant argued the evidence, though chronologically available at the time of the hearing, was functionally unavailable because he was on long-term disability and did not participate.

The Commission applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding the first branch was not met because the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing.

The issue of whether the hearing officer erred in proceeding in the appellant's absence was deferred to the main appeal.

The appellant, a police officer with 19 years of service, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to seven counts of insubordination and one count of neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved over 100 unauthorized CPIC checks, inappropriate relationships with women known to have criminal records, and negligent administration of police duties.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider mitigating factors, including his personal circumstances and depression.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and correctly concluded that the appellant's protracted pattern of serious misconduct warranted dismissal.

The City of Kawartha Lakes Police Service brought a motion to dismiss Constable Randy Johnson's appeal for failing to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory period under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant argued he did not receive written notice of the penalty decision until he received a letter from the Chief on February 15, 2012.

The Commission found that the appellant received written notice on January 6, 2012, when the Hearing Officer emailed the decision to his counsel on consent.

As the notice of appeal was filed late and the Commission has no statutory power to extend the time period, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant, a public complainant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for alleged unauthorized database searches.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the appellant's initial e-mail complaint was unsigned, failing to meet the mandatory requirements of s. 57(2) of the Police Services Act, and that the officer had already been informally disciplined for the conduct.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by considering expunged disciplinary records and raised new grounds including issue estoppel.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded the complaint was invalid for lack of a signature and properly considered oral testimony regarding the prior discipline.

The Commission also held it lacked jurisdiction to hear new grounds of appeal filed beyond the statutory time limit.

The appellant, a detective constable, appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination after leaving his loaded service firearm unsecured on his desk.

He argued that he did not receive proper notice of the chief's complaint under the Police Services Act and sought to introduce new evidence regarding a past misconduct conviction of the main witness.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission denied the motion to introduce new evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, concluding that the hearing officer reasonably found that proper notice was given during the informal resolution process and that the evidence clearly supported the finding that the appellant failed to secure his firearm.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved forcing entry into a neighbour's home while intoxicated to confront his son, and subsequently actively resisting arrest by fellow officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's decision reasonable given the appellant's history of progressive discipline for alcohol-related misconduct, failure to rehabilitate despite multiple opportunities, and the serious damage to the reputation of the police service.

The appellant filed a complaint against a police officer for conducting unlawful CPIC searches.

The police service attempted to resolve the matter informally without the appellant's consent, contrary to the Police Services Act.

At the disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer quashed the charges against the officer, citing the criminal law principle of double jeopardy because the officer had already been counselled.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the informal resolution was a legal nullity due to lack of consent, that double jeopardy does not apply to administrative employment discipline, and that the Hearing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons.

The matter was remitted for a hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission previously found the respondent police officer guilty of unlawful exercise of authority and insubordination related to an unlawful arrest and strip search.

In this penalty decision, the Commission considered the officer's employment history, prior disciplinary record, and the seriousness of the misconduct.

Accepting the joint submission of the respondents, the Commission ordered the officer to forfeit 8 days or 64 hours of pay.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision acquitting a police officer of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and insubordination.

The officer had arrested the appellant for allegedly breaching release conditions and conducted a strip search behind a convenience store.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made significant errors of law and fact, failed to provide adequate reasons, and ignored material evidence.

The Commission revoked the acquittals and substituted findings of guilt on both charges, concluding the arrest lacked reasonable grounds and the strip search violated police policy.