David Thompson

The appellant appealed the penalty of a five-day suspension imposed on a police officer for one count of discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce new documentary evidence, which was dismissed as the evidence did not meet the Palmer test.

On the main appeal, the Commission reviewed the penalty and found that a five-day suspension was fair, appropriate, and consistent with similar cases involving unauthorized CPIC checks.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the penalty of a five-day suspension imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the unauthorized use of the CPIC system.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce new documentary evidence, which the Commission dismissed as the evidence was not relevant, significant, or credible.

On the merits of the appeal, the Commission reviewed the penalty and found that a five-day suspension was a fair and appropriate sanction for the breach of confidence, consistent with prior decisions involving similar misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a civilian complainant, appealed the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the unauthorized use of the CPIC system.

The officer had used CPIC to obtain information about the appellant, who was dating the officer's former girlfriend, and subsequently threatened the appellant.

The officer pled guilty and received a five-day suspension for this specific count.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it lacked credibility and relevance.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the five-day suspension, concluding it was a fair and appropriate penalty that fell within the acceptable range for unauthorized CPIC use, balancing deterrence with the officer's potential for rehabilitation.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The applicant argued he was denied full participation in the hearing process, particularly regarding plea bargaining between the prosecutor and the officer.

The Commission noted that while leave to appeal is not automatic, the Police Services Act's Declaration of Principles emphasizes cooperation with communities and respect for victims.

Given the novel issues concerning a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the mandate for fundamental fairness, the Commission granted leave to appeal.

The applicant, a complainant in a police disciplinary matter, sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for improperly accessing the CPIC system.

The applicant argued he was denied full participation in the hearing process, particularly regarding plea bargaining that resulted in the withdrawal of other charges.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the novel issues raised concerning a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the fundamental fairness of the proceedings warranted an appeal under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act.

The applicant complainant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The officer had pleaded guilty to certain charges while others were withdrawn following a plea bargain from which the complainant was excluded.

The respondent police service argued that leave should be denied based on the strict test for interlocutory appeals under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Commission held that it is not bound by the civil rules and has broad discretion under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act to grant leave where 'appropriate'.

Given the novel issues regarding a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the Act's Declaration of Principles, the Commission granted leave to appeal.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalties imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct, as well as the withdrawal of other disciplinary charges.

The Commission held a preliminary hearing to determine the appellant's standing as a public complainant and its jurisdiction over withdrawn charges.

The Commission found that the appellant's statement to the OPP during a criminal investigation did not constitute a public complaint under Part V of the Police Services Act.

The appellant only had standing to appeal the penalty for one count arising from a later written complaint.

Furthermore, the Commission ruled it had no statutory authority to hear appeals regarding disciplinary charges that were withdrawn by the prosecutor, as no decision had been rendered on those charges.

The appellant brought an application under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act seeking leave to appeal decisions arising from disciplinary proceedings against a police constable.

The parties agreed that two preliminary matters needed to be determined before the leave to appeal application could proceed.