Gary R. Clewley

The appellant successfully appealed a hearing officer's decision, resulting in findings of misconduct against two police officers for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

This decision determines the appropriate penalty.

The Commission considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the officers' employment histories, and the element of provocation by the appellant.

Constable Parker, who initiated the arrest, was suspended without pay for 32 hours.

Constable Koscinski, who assisted, was ordered to forfeit 16 hours off.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision that found two police officers not guilty of misconduct for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

The Commission previously revoked the hearing officer's findings and substituted determinations of guilt.

In this penalty decision, the Commission considered the officers' employment histories, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the appellant's provocative behavior.

The Commission imposed a penalty of a 32-hour suspension without pay for the primary officer and a forfeiture of 16 hours off for the junior officer who assisted.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision clearing two police officers of misconduct.

The Commission previously revoked that decision and found the officers guilty of making an unlawful and unnecessary arrest and using unnecessary force against the appellant in a courtroom.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the seriousness of the misconduct against mitigating factors, including the officers' employment records and the appellant's provocative behaviour.

The Commission ordered the senior officer to be suspended without pay for four days (32 hours) and the junior officer to forfeit two days (16 hours) off.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing allegations of misconduct against two police officers.

The officers had arrested the appellant for causing a disturbance in a courtroom while a Justice of the Peace was presiding, subsequently using force to remove him.

The Commission revoked the hearing officer's decision, finding that the officers' general authority to arrest for a disturbance was superseded by the presiding Justice of the Peace's authority to control the courtroom and deal with contempt.

The Commission concluded the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary, rendering the force used unjustified, and found the officers guilty of misconduct.

The appellant was arrested by two police officers for causing a disturbance in a courtroom while a Justice of the Peace was presiding over his wife's trial.

The officers dragged the appellant from the courtroom and used force to restrain him.

The appellant filed a public complaint, and a disciplinary hearing initially cleared the officers.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the hearing officer's decision, finding that the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary because the presiding Justice of the Peace's authority to control the courtroom and deal with contempt superseded the officers' general authority to arrest for a disturbance.

Consequently, the force used was unjustified, and the officers were found guilty of misconduct.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that cleared two police officers of misconduct for arresting him and using force in a courtroom.

The appellant had been making disruptive comments during his wife's trial.

The officers arrested him for causing a disturbance without direction from the presiding Justice of the Peace.

The Commission found that the officers' authority to arrest for a disturbance was superseded by the presiding Justice of the Peace's power to control the courtroom and deal with contempt.

The Commission concluded the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary, and therefore the force used was unjustified, revoking the hearing officer's decision and finding the officers guilty of misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct for intentionally making numerous harassing phone calls to a fellow officer.

The calls consisted of background noise and were made from the appellant's cell phone using a speed dial key.

The appellant argued the calls were accidental.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that it could not interfere with the Hearing Officer's decision unless it lacked an evidentiary foundation or contained a manifest error in principle.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer carefully analyzed the evidence, including expert testimony on accidental activation, and reasonably concluded that the calls were intentional.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for allegedly making numerous harassing phone calls to a fellow officer.

The calls consisted of background noise and were made from the appellant's cell phone, which had the complainant's number programmed on speed dial.

The appellant argued the calls were accidental.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision to reject the accidental activation defence was supported by the evidence and contained no manifest error in principle.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making numerous harassing phone calls to a colleague.

The appellant argued the calls were accidentally made by his cell phone's speed dial function.

The Hearing Officer rejected the accidental activation defence and found the calls were intentional.

On appeal, the Commission held that its role was restricted to determining if the decision lacked evidentiary foundation or contained a manifest error in principle.

Finding neither, the Commission deferred to the Hearing Officer and dismissed the appeal.

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.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for insubordination and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal, arising from her failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and her subsequent conduct during the investigation.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding that the order to answer questions orally was lawful and that the finding of deceit was supported by evidence of her actual knowledge of the events.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the dismissal to a demotion to second class constable for one year, citing her unblemished record and the principle of progressive discipline.

The applicant union sought certification under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively a new representation vote, following a lost vote.

The union alleged employer misconduct, including a physical altercation and threats, and irregularities in the vote's conduct, notably the employer acting as his own scrutineer.

The Board found the employer's conduct did not warrant automatic certification under section 7a.

However, the Board set aside the representation vote and ordered a new one, concluding that the employer's presence as a scrutineer, combined with previous threats and the seating arrangements during the vote, made it unlikely that the ballot accurately reflected the employees' true wishes.