Brian Duxbury

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for neglect of duty and deceit, and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and overturned all convictions.

The Commission found no evidence to support the neglect of duty charge, noting the Hearing Officer's contradictory findings regarding the officer's notes.

The Commission also found no evidence of intent to mislead to support the first deceit charge, and concluded the officer had a lawful excuse for destroying a computer disk as he was following established practice.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of neglect of duty for allegedly failing to take a report and make notes regarding a civilian complaint.

The Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, finding that the prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence linking the appellant to the incident.

The only evidence presented was that the appellant's notebook contained no entries and she submitted no report, but there was no direct evidence that she was assigned to the call, involved in the call, or had any contact with the complainant.

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 police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of neglect of duty for allegedly failing to submit a report and make notes 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.

The Commission noted that the hearing officer's conclusions lacked an evidentiary foundation, as no direct evidence was introduced to prove the officer was assigned to or involved in the call.

The appellant, an Acting Sergeant, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty for failing to ensure that appropriate reports were submitted following a serious incident involving a tactical takedown of a man mistakenly believed to be carrying a concealed weapon.

The appellant argued there was no clear policy or system requiring him to check reports against calls for service.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that a clear policy existed requiring supervisors to ensure complete reports are filed, and that the failure to do so in such a serious incident warranted the finding of Neglect of Duty.

The appellant, an Acting Sergeant, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty for failing to ensure that appropriate reports were submitted following a police response to a concealed weapon call.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer did not err in concluding that supervisors have a duty to ensure complete and signed reports are filed, and that the failure to do so in this serious incident constituted Neglect of Duty.

The Appellant, an Acting Sergeant, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty for failing to ensure that appropriate reports were submitted following a serious police incident involving a tactical takedown of a man mistakenly believed to be armed.

The Appellant argued there was no clear policy or training requiring supervisors to check reports against calls for service.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, upholding the Hearing Officer's finding that supervisors have a clear duty to ensure complete reports are filed, and the failure to do so in this serious incident constituted Neglect of Duty.