Harry G. Black

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty of resignation or dismissal.

The misconduct involved nine separate incidents of careless use of a firearm and one incident of showing a scrotum piercing to a female officer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer had considered the appropriate factors, including the gravity of the misconduct, employment history, and rehabilitation prospects, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range.

The appellant, a staff sergeant, appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding his conviction for discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from a meeting with a constable who had previously filed a racial harassment complaint against him.

The hearing officer found the appellant's conduct constituted a reprisal based on the constable's subjective perception, despite accepting the appellant's evidence denying any reprisal intent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the hearing officer and Commission erred by focusing on the constable's subjective perception rather than the appellant's intent, and by failing to consider whether the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force.

The conviction was set aside.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary decision finding the respondent police sergeant guilty of neglect of duty for denying the appellant his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The respondent had held the appellant incommunicado for over 27 hours due to officer safety concerns during a raid on a dangerous crime family's property.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the Charter breach began only after the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed the appellant's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter breach, and increased the penalty to a reduction in rank for six months.

The appellant appealed convictions for historical sexual offences arising from alleged genital touching during karate stretching demonstrations involving former students.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed serious legal error by failing to properly analyze the effect of possible collusion and inadvertent tainting caused by an organizing witness's extensive involvement and repeated meetings among complainants.

The court also found that the trial judge improperly reversed the burden of proof, scrutinized defence evidence more harshly than Crown evidence, relied excessively on demeanour, and misapprehended significant parts of the record.

Although the verdict was not found unreasonable, the convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on charges of dangerous driving and impaired ability causing bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly directed himself on the elements of dangerous driving and considered the totality of the evidence.

The Court also held that the trial judge applied the correct legal test for impaired ability causing bodily harm, recognizing that even slight impairment of ability is sufficient to make out the offence.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed findings of guilt for four counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit, as well as the penalty of demotion to 3rd class Constable.

The misconduct arose from his failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and his subsequent false statements to an investigating officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the convictions, finding clear and convincing evidence of the misconduct.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, finding the original demotion too severe given the appellant's 22-year unblemished record.

The penalty was reduced to a demotion to 2nd class Constable for two years.

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.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed findings of guilt on seven counts of misconduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved unauthorized use of the CPIC system for personal reasons to track his former common-law spouse, failing to report her breach of bail conditions, and improperly using his position to obtain an occurrence report.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding they were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty, finding that dismissal was appropriate given the officer's disciplinary history and the serious, repeated abuse of the CPIC system.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed findings of guilt on seven counts of misconduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved unauthorized use of the CPIC and MANIX systems for personal reasons related to his former common-law spouse, failing to report her breach of bail conditions, and improperly using his position to obtain an occurrence report.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite some inaudible passages in the hearing transcripts, there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of guilt.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's prior disciplinary record, the seriousness of misusing police databases, and the need for deterrence.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on seven counts of misconduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct charges stemmed from his unauthorized use of the CPIC system to conduct numerous inquiries on his former common-law spouse and her new partner, as well as failing to report her breach of bail conditions and improperly using his position to obtain an occurrence report.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's prior disciplinary record and the serious nature of using CPIC for personal reasons.

The appellant, a staff sergeant with 29 years of service, appealed a disciplinary penalty imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

While off duty, the appellant drove impaired, struck a parked car, directed racial slurs at the vehicle's owner, and assaulted him.

He was convicted criminally of impaired driving and assault.

The Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of demotion to sergeant for one year, after which the appellant would be required to enter the normal promotional process to regain his rank.

The appellant argued this indeterminate demotion was illegal under section 68(1)(c) of the Police Services Act and was harsh and excessive.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the statute permits a demotion requiring an officer to compete for promotion, and that the penalty was appropriate given the highly offensive nature of the conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest for public intoxication, and the resulting penalty of a 12-day suspension.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the finding of misconduct, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias regarding the Hearing Officer's subsequent employment at OCCPS, and concluding the misconduct finding was supported by evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred by considering post-offence disciplinary matters.

The penalty was reduced to a 4-day suspension.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest for public intoxication.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the finding of misconduct, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the suspension from 12 days to 4 days because the Hearing Officer improperly considered disciplinary matters that postdated the offence.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest for public intoxication, and the resulting penalty of a 12-day suspension.

The appellant also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Hearing Officer subsequently accepted a position at the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

The Commission dismissed the bias claim and upheld the misconduct finding, concluding it was supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred by considering post-offence disciplinary matters.

The penalty was reduced to a 4-day suspension.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination under the Police Services Act and Code of Conduct for failing to attend court.

The appellant had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at overlapping times.

The hearing officer accepted the appellant's evidence that he simply forgot to attend court due to the excitement of being at the medical bureau and hoping to return to work, but concluded this did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, applying Divisional Court precedent that an honest mistake can provide an answer to the charge.

The Commission found that the appellant's forgetfulness in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse and set aside the finding of guilt.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for misconduct (insubordination) for failing to attend court.

The officer had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at the same time.

He attended the medical bureau and forgot to attend court due to the excitement of potentially returning to work.

The Hearing Officer accepted his evidence but found it did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, holding that an honest mistake in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse, and set aside the finding of guilt.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for misconduct (insubordination) for failing to attend court.

The officer had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at overlapping times.

He attended the medical bureau and forgot to attend court due to the excitement of potentially returning to work.

The Hearing Officer accepted his evidence but found forgetfulness was not a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, holding that an honest mistake in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse.

The appellant, a senior police officer, appealed a conviction and reprimand for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant allegedly failed to investigate information provided by the widow of a murdered officer, who claimed that two officers were improperly absent from their duties on the night of the murder.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision to prefer the widow's evidence over the appellant's was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal against both the conviction and the penalty was dismissed.

The appellant, a police superintendent, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and the resulting penalty of a reprimand.

The charge arose from allegations that he failed to initiate an investigation after being informed by the widow of a murdered officer that two other officers were improperly absent from duty on the night of the murder.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision, which relied on the widow's testimony over the appellant's, was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appeal against both the conviction and the penalty was dismissed.