Zahra Dhanani

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.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct for stealing gas and supplies from the detachment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer made significant errors by failing to consider substantial mitigating character evidence and the appellant's successful rehabilitation for PTSD and alcoholism.

The penalty was varied to a demotion to fourth-class constable with strict conditions for ongoing psychological monitoring.

The appellant, a 25-year veteran police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal or resignation imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The disciplinary charge stemmed from an off-duty incident where the appellant, after failing a use of force re-qualification, consumed alcohol, destroyed property in his home, and violently resisted arrest by assaulting and threatening responding officers.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the evidence or the application of the relevant penalty factors, and concluded that the appellant's egregious conduct destroyed his usefulness to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for insubordination and breach of confidence, as well as the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal.

The charges arose from an unauthorized CPIC check on a surveillance vehicle involved in a joint forces investigation, and the subsequent disclosure of that information to an undercover officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the credibility assessments and factual determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was also upheld given the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's lack of remorse, and the paramount importance of protecting the CPIC database.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct for incivility toward a civilian town employee.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility, failed to consider his medical state, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias due to a comment about his counsel's ethnicity.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and applied the correct objective test for discreditable conduct.

The Commission also held that the single comment regarding counsel's ethnicity, while inappropriate, did not impact the substantive issues or create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a disciplinary penalty on the basis that the notice of appeal was filed 11 days after the 30-day statutory deadline.

The appellant did not oppose the motion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that section 70(1) of the Police Services Act imposes a strict 30-day time limit and that the 1997 amendments to the Act removed the Commission's discretion to extend the time for filing appeals.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.