Christiane Huneault

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and insubordination and received a nine-month demotion based on a joint submission.

He appealed the penalty, alleging ineffective representation by his association representative, and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission partially granted the motion, allowing the introduction of communications relevant to the ineffective representation claim, but excluding evidence that went to the underlying convictions, as only the penalty was under appeal.

The appellant appealed the decision of a Hearing Officer dismissing charges of neglect of duty against three Ottawa Police Service officers.

The charges arose from the officers' investigation of a physical altercation involving the appellant, specifically regarding the failure to photograph the appellant's injuries, failure to review a seized camera, and failure to complete a return to justice form.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law, did not exhibit bias, provided adequate assistance to the unrepresented appellant, and properly assessed the evidence.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's claim of prosecutorial incompetence.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for Unnecessary Exercise of Authority.

After a lengthy appellate history reaching the Court of Appeal, which determined the correct standard of proof was clear and convincing evidence rather than a balance of probabilities, the matter was remitted to the Commission.

The complainant subsequently withdrew the complaint.

Given the withdrawal and the inability to determine if the Hearing Officer would have reached the same conclusion under the correct standard, the Commission rescinded the Hearing Officer's decision.

The respondent police officers brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal or quash his request for leave to appeal, arguing he failed to comply with the Police Services Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice regarding service.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant was not required to seek leave to appeal because no disciplinary penalty was imposed, as the charges had been dismissed.

Furthermore, the Commission retroactively authorized the appellant's service of the Notice of Appeal through the Ottawa Police Service, noting the respondents suffered no prejudice.

The respondent public complainant sought partial indemnity costs of $9,316.87 from the applicant police officer following a proceeding.

The applicant did not dispute the quantum but argued no costs should be ordered because the matter was a test case concerning the standard of proof in police disciplinary cases.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that while the co-respondent police service did not seek costs, the proceeding was not a test case for the public complainant, who was maintaining a civil claim against the applicant.

The court awarded the requested costs to the respondent public complainant.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding his conviction for unnecessary exercise of authority.

The applicant argued that the hearing officer erred by applying the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) rather than a higher standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' under s. 84(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in F.H. v. McDougall established that there is only one civil standard of proof, and that police discipline hearings remain civil proceedings governed by the balance of probabilities.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and a penalty of forfeiture of 12 days' pay for using unnecessary force during an arrest.

The officer argued that the hearing officer applied the wrong standard of proof, misapprehended the evidence regarding knee strikes, and erred in assessing the necessity of the force used.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the balance of probabilities standard, reasonably concluded that the knee strikes constituted unnecessary force, and imposed a reasonable penalty consistent with similar cases.

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 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.