Ian B. Johnstone

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of two counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of demotion from First Class to Fourth Class Constable.

The charges arose from an off-duty domestic altercation where the appellant pushed his estranged wife.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably admitted and weighed hearsay evidence, made reasonable findings of fact supported by the appellant's own admissions, and appropriately applied the dispositional factors.

The penalty of demotion, while severe, was found to be within the reasonable range of outcomes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and place of origin after the police and Crown declined to pursue criminal charges against his former business partner.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing on the basis of timeliness.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's explanation that he was exhausting other avenues of redress was not a sufficient good faith reason to extend the time for filing.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination arising from an incident where he allegedly attended a police disciplinary hearing under the influence of alcohol and refused an order to take a breath test.

The Hearing Officer's decision was premised on the finding that the appellant was on duty at the time.

The Commission found that the evidence did not reasonably support the conclusion that the appellant was on duty, as he had been granted an 'Association day' and was not explicitly ordered to return to work.

The Commission revoked the findings of guilt and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for Discreditable Conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal from the police service.

The officer had previously pleaded guilty to the disciplinary charge, which was based on a criminal conviction that was later overturned on appeal.

The Commission held that the subsequent overturning of the criminal conviction did not render the original, informed guilty plea a nullity.

The Commission further found that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the officer's disciplinary history and the serious nature of the misconduct, which involved violence and threats against members of the public.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an unrepresented public complainant, appealed the dismissal of disciplinary charges against a police officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer breached natural justice and procedural fairness by failing to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission agreed, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to provide the minimum level of assistance required for an unrepresented party, such as explaining the process, confirming his understanding, and inviting him to call or cross-examine witnesses.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing was ordered.

The Amherstburg Police Service brought a motion to file three affidavits responding to allegations of breaches of natural justice and procedural fairness in a disciplinary proceeding.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged breaches could be determined by reference to the record, making the affidavit evidence unnecessary and unfair.

The Commission also noted that it is improper for a Hearing Officer to swear an affidavit explaining their conduct after the fact.

The Durham Regional Police Association and the Senior Officers' Association applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to determine whether a Durham College employee, seconded to the Durham Regional Police Service as Dean of the Police Education and Innovation Centre, was an employee of the Service and thus a member of the Senior Officers' Association.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the clear language of the secondment agreement established the individual remained an employee of the College, despite performing senior leadership duties at the Service.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering him to resign or be dismissed after being found guilty of Discreditable Conduct, Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority, and Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Force.

The officer had pursued and forcefully arrested a mentally ill pedestrian without lawful authority and grounded him multiple times.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's penalty decision was reasonable.

The Hearing Officer appropriately considered the officer's prior disciplinary record, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the fact that the officer continued to engage in similar misconduct despite receiving extensive therapy for his mental health issues.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay termination and severance pay to a terminated employee.

The employer argued the employee was disentitled to such pay due to wilful misconduct and neglect of duty, specifically excessive absenteeism and failure to follow absence reporting procedures.

The Board found that while the employee breached reporting policies, his absences were related to a valid medical reason and he was not deliberately trying to mislead the employer.

The Board concluded the employee's conduct did not amount to wilful misconduct or wilful neglect of duty under the Employment Standards Act.

The Order to Pay was confirmed.