Administrative Law

The appellant appealed dispositions of the Ontario Review Board dated June 23, 2016 and March 7, 2017 regarding her detention on a secure forensic unit.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences in 2005 and 2006.

She argued that the Board's finding that she poses a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that she should receive an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that she remains a significant threat but found that the Board erred in summarily dismissing her request for a conditional discharge without further inquiry into her current behavioural status and without considering whether her risk could be managed through a conditional discharge with a consensual treatment order.

A dual-status offender appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to decline his request for a placement review hearing as part of his annual disposition review.

The appellant had been found Not Criminally Responsible in 1997 and subsequently convicted of murder in 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in declining to conduct a placement review hearing where the appellant had not requested one prior to the scheduled hearing date, other parties were not ready to proceed, and the disposition review hearing was already significantly overdue.

The court noted that the appellant remained entitled to request a placement review hearing under section 672.69(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act for using unnecessary force and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer found that the appellant had pepper-sprayed a handcuffed prisoner in the back of a police cruiser and subsequently failed to document the use of force in his arrest report or a mandatory Use of Force Report.

On appeal, the Commission held that the Hearing Officer's credibility findings and conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission found no manifest error in the determination that the failure to report the use of pepper spray was deliberate and constituted neglect of duty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had issued two sets of summonses to a motorist but only served one set, leading to the motorist being convicted in absentia on the unserved charges and wrongfully incarcerated for five days.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the evidence supported the conviction and that the officer's deliberate dishonesty, lack of remorse, and the severe consequences to the innocent motorist justified the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of immediate dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to four counts of misconduct, including neglect of duty, deceit, and two counts of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved engaging in sexual activity with members of the public while on duty and in uniform, as well as leaving a scheduled training seminar to meet a woman and subsequently falsifying duty reports.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly considered the relevant factors including the officer's potential for rehabilitation, and imposed a penalty consistent with similar infractions.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing a charge of misconduct against the respondent police officer for making an unlawful arrest.

The Commission previously revoked the dismissal and substituted a finding of guilt, noting the officer misunderstood the law regarding the revocation of an implied licence to knock.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the seriousness of the misconduct against the officer's junior status, his mistaken but good faith belief in the lawfulness of his actions, and his subsequent positive performance.

The Commission ordered the officer to participate in a critical incident debrief to help incorporate the findings into training procedures and issued a formal reprimand.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for two counts of discreditable conduct and the penalty of dismissal imposed for a third count of careless handling of a firearm.

The Commission upheld the conviction for showing a scrotum piercing to a colleague, finding it brought discredit to the police service.

However, the Commission overturned the conviction regarding a practical joke involving a dead cat, as the matter had been properly addressed through informal resolution.

The Commission upheld the penalty of resignation or dismissal for the firearm charge, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of nine separate incidents of pointing or mishandling a service weapon.

The appellant appealed a decision finding a police officer not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged the officer failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into a domestic dispute, citing the officer's prior acquaintance with a witness and failure to interview a nanny.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, concluding there was no manifest error in finding the officer's actions did not constitute neglect of duty and that the threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias was not met.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for neglect of duty, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings were barred by the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent argued the appeal itself was out of time under section 70(1).

The Commission held that the Notice of Hearing was served within the six-month limitation period, which commenced when the investigator received the officer's notes and formulated the opinion that misconduct occurred.

The Commission also held that the appeal was timely because the officer never received proper written notice of the hearing officer's decision on the limitation motion.

The conviction for neglect of duty was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The conviction stemmed from an overheard conversation in which the appellant allegedly made reprisal comments about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint against him.

The appellant argued the hearing officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of one officer who overheard only a portion of the conversation.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed findings of guilt for four counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit, as well as the penalty of demotion to 3rd class Constable.

The misconduct arose from his failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and his subsequent false statements to an investigating officer.

The Commission upheld the findings of guilt, finding clear and convincing evidence of the misconduct.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the original penalty too severe given the appellant's 22-year unblemished record, and varied the penalty to a demotion to 2nd class Constable for two years.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a three-month gradation in rank.

The charges arose from a conversation in which the appellant allegedly made comments to a subordinate officer that constituted a reprisal for a previous human rights complaint and a retraction of a prior apology.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding a reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence of discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission found the penalty was harsh and excessive because the Hearing Officer improperly considered expunged informal discipline records.

The penalty was reduced to a loss of 6 days or 48 hours time.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of insubordination and discreditable conduct against two police officers.

The charges arose from a confrontation between the appellant and the officers, who were in plainclothes executing a search warrant in the appellant's apartment building.

The appellant alleged racial profiling and bias by the Hearing Officer.

The Commission dismissed a motion by the respondents to introduce fresh evidence explaining discrepancies between the Hearing Officer's oral and written decisions.

Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and concluding that the Hearing Officer's conduct did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary hearing decision finding her guilty of two counts of neglect of duty for allegedly failing to submit an occurrence report and failing to make notebook entries regarding a civilian complaint.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, finding that the prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence linking the officer to the incident or the complainant.

The appellant, a staff sergeant with 29 years of service, appealed a disciplinary penalty imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

While off duty, the appellant drove impaired, struck another vehicle, directed racial slurs at the vehicle's owner, and assaulted him.

The Hearing Officer imposed an agreed-upon penalty of demotion to sergeant for one year, but ordered that the appellant must enter the promotional process to regain his former rank rather than returning automatically.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that section 68(1)(c) of the Police Services Act permits a Hearing Officer to specify a demotion that requires an officer to compete for promotion, and that the penalty was not harsh or excessive given the serious nature of the misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest for public intoxication.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the finding of misconduct, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the suspension from 12 days to 4 days because the Hearing Officer improperly considered disciplinary matters that postdated the offence.

The appellants, two police detectives, appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act for consuming alcohol while on duty and neglecting their duty during a surveillance operation.

The only issue on appeal was whether they were on duty at the relevant time.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that clear and convincing evidence, including sign-in sheets, authorization for a double shift, and the use of police vehicles, established they were on duty.

The appeal against the penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time for each offence was also dismissed, as the penalty appropriately balanced the officer's unblemished record with the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty.

Two police officers appealed their disciplinary convictions for consuming alcohol while on duty and neglect of duty, arguing the Hearing Officer erred in finding they were on duty at the relevant time.

One officer also appealed his penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding there was clear and convincing evidence that the officers were on duty, including authorization for a double shift, use of police vehicles, and sign-in sheets.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, balancing the officer's unblemished record against the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for misconduct (insubordination) for failing to attend court.

The officer had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at the same time.

He attended the medical bureau and forgot to attend court due to the excitement of potentially returning to work.

The Hearing Officer accepted his evidence but found it did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, holding that an honest mistake in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse, and set aside the finding of guilt.