Gary R. Clewley

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of insubordination and discreditable conduct against two police officers.

The appellant alleged the officers engaged in racial profiling and misconduct during an encounter in his apartment building, and argued the Hearing Officer displayed bias and made procedural errors.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest errors in the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and concluding that the clear and convincing evidence standard for misconduct was not met.

The Commission also dismissed a motion by the respondents to introduce fresh evidence regarding the Hearing Officer's written decision.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of insubordination and discreditable conduct against two police officers.

The charges arose from a confrontation between the appellant and the officers, who were in plainclothes executing a search warrant in the appellant's apartment building.

The appellant alleged racial profiling and bias by the Hearing Officer.

The Commission dismissed a motion by the respondents to introduce fresh evidence explaining discrepancies between the Hearing Officer's oral and written decisions.

Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and concluding that the Hearing Officer's conduct did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Two police officers appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Code of Conduct for consuming alcohol while on duty and leaving their detail without permission.

The appellants argued the Hearing Officer erred in finding they were on duty at the relevant time.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding clear and convincing evidence—including sign-in sheets, authorization for a double shift, and the officers' own notes—supported the conclusion that they were on duty.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time for each offence, emphasizing the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty and the need for general deterrence.

Two police officers appealed their disciplinary convictions for consuming alcohol while on duty and neglect of duty, arguing the Hearing Officer erred in finding they were on duty at the relevant time.

One officer also appealed his penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding there was clear and convincing evidence that the officers were on duty, including authorization for a double shift, use of police vehicles, and sign-in sheets.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, balancing the officer's unblemished record against the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty.

The appellants, two police detectives, appealed their convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act for consuming alcohol while on duty and neglecting their duty during a surveillance operation.

The only issue on appeal was whether they were on duty at the relevant time.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the hearing officer's finding that clear and convincing evidence, including sign-in sheets, authorization for a double shift, and the use of police vehicles, established they were on duty.

The appeal against the penalty of 6 days or 48 hours time for each offence was also dismissed, as the penalty appropriately balanced the officer's unblemished record with the seriousness of consuming alcohol on duty.

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.