Harry G. Black

The applicant, a probationary police constable, sought judicial review of the police services board's decision to terminate his employment.

He argued the board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to require witnesses to give evidence under oath or allow cross-examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under section 44(3) of the Police Services Act, the board was acting as an employer exercising an administrative function.

The Court held that the board was not clearly wrong or unreasonable in exercising its discretion not to take evidence under oath or permit cross-examination, given the circumstances and the information already before it.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for deceit.

He had been charged after denying possession of his police notebooks, despite having signed a receipt for them.

After the hearing officer found him guilty, the missing notebooks were discovered in a secure police storage room.

The Commission admitted the new evidence of the notebooks' discovery and overturned the conviction, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were based on manifest error and that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to deceive.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for deceit.

The conviction was based on an allegation that he falsely denied possessing his police notebooks, having signed a receipt for them.

On appeal, the Commission admitted new evidence showing the notebooks were actually found in a secure police storage room two years later.

The Commission overturned the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer made manifest errors and drew erroneous conclusions, as the evidence did not support an intent to deceive.

The Peel Regional Police Service brought a motion to quash an appeal by Constable Cate for want of jurisdiction.

Constable Cate had been found guilty of insubordination and deceit at a disciplinary hearing regarding missing police notebooks.

Before sentencing, the missing notebooks were discovered.

The Hearing Officer stayed the insubordination charge and declared a mistrial on the deceit charge.

Constable Cate appealed the deceit conviction.

The Service argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the hearing was not completed.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer had no statutory authority to declare a mistrial, meaning the conviction stood.

Given the Hearing Officer's refusal to proceed to sentencing, the hearing was practically concluded, giving the Commission jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The motion to quash was denied.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing disciplinary charges against several police officers.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion arguing that the applicant failed to serve them with proper notice of the appeal within the 30-day period required by the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The Commission found that the applicant's attempts to serve the officers by faxing the Chief of Police and leaving copies with a student at police headquarters did not constitute proper service.

As the applicant had sufficient information to effect proper service but failed to do so, the preliminary motion was granted and the application for leave to appeal was denied.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct (unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority) arising from an incident where he entered a private residence without a warrant and used force against the homeowner during a missing person investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the officer had no legal authority to enter the main residence after permission was revoked, and that there were no exigent circumstances justifying the entry or the use of force.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings on credibility and the application of the law.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against several police officers.

The respondents raised preliminary motions arguing that the chief of police's prosecutor was not a proper party to the appeal and that the appeal was filed outside the 30-day limitation period under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that the prosecutor is a proper party to the appeal.

The Commission also found that the appeal was filed within the 30-day period, as the time began to run when the applicant received written notice of the decision, not when he was verbally informed.

The preliminary motions to dismiss were denied.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for deceit and insubordination, and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of two days off.

The deceit charge arose from false notebook entries concealing a visit to a chiropractor while on duty.

The insubordination charge arose from the officer's failure to submit a written report regarding equipment found in his locker while he was suspended.

The Commission upheld both convictions, finding the notebook entries were inaccurate and misleading, and that a suspended officer remains obligated to comply with lawful orders from superiors.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct and a reprimand for failing to disclose a witness statement in a Crown Brief concerning a drinking and driving accident.

The appellant argued that he followed mandatory procedures which directed that only essential witnesses be included, and that his supervising officers approved the brief.

The provided text concludes after summarizing the appellant's submissions.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of discreditable conduct and penalties of resignation or dismissal arising from two off-duty incidents involving alcohol and drugs.

The Commission reduced the penalty for the first charge (impaired driving) to a forfeiture of twenty days off, noting the Force's principle that alcoholism is a treatable disease.

On the second charge (involvement with crack cocaine), the Commission upheld the finding of guilt based on the officer's presence and participation in a drug scene, but found no clear evidence that he actually used the drug.

The penalty for the second charge was reduced to a demotion to Fourth Class Constable for one year, subject to strict conditions including participation in Alcoholics Anonymous.

Two police officers appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of forfeiting two days off.

The officers had obtained a judge's order to transport a prisoner to police headquarters but instead took him to a restaurant to meet his wife, an undercover participant, to build rapport with the informant.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officers breached a court order, although the deviation was minor and understandable in the context of intelligence gathering.

The Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, quashing the forfeiture of days off and substituting a reprimand.

The appellant, a police constable, was convicted of a disciplinary offence for refusing a lawful order to patrol outside the Morgentaler Clinic, citing his religious beliefs against abortion.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the order to keep the peace did not violate his Charter rights or constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code, as a constable's duty to preserve the peace must be performed impartially regardless of personal conscience.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, reducing it to a demotion in rank, noting the appellant's good service record and his undertaking to obey lawful orders in the future.