Dr. Tari

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The conviction arose after the appellant crashed his police cruiser and subsequently provided a false statement to the investigating officer, claiming he had left his roof lights on from an earlier traffic stop.

At the hearing, the appellant called a psychologist to suggest his memory was impaired, but the Hearings Officer rejected this evidence and found the appellant was deceitful.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearings Officer's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the psychological theory of memory contamination was unfounded.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for tampering with evidence and failing to lay appropriate charges.

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

The conviction arose from a false statement he gave to an investigating officer after he crashed his police cruiser into a bridge.

The appellant claimed he had left his roof lights on from an earlier traffic stop, but civilian witnesses confirmed he activated them just before the crash.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearings Officer erred by discounting expert psychological evidence suggesting memory impairment.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was beyond the expert's expertise and unsupported by the facts.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for failing to properly investigate the collision and tampering with evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for deceit under the Police Services Act after providing a false statement regarding a single-vehicle collision involving his police cruiser.

The appellant argued the Hearings Officer erred in discounting expert psychological evidence suggesting his memory was impaired.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the expert's theory of memory contamination unsupported by the evidence and upholding the Hearings Officer's conclusion that the appellant was deceitful.

The Commission also strongly criticized the conduct of the appellant and other officers at the scene for tampering with evidence and failing to lay appropriate charges.