Jinan Kubursi

The appellant, an OPP Sergeant, appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The allegations stemmed from an incident where the appellant, while 'on call', left his region to return borrowed equipment and was involved in a motor vehicle collision in an OPP vehicle.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty for failing to notify his supervisor before leaving the region and failing to report the collision in a timely manner.

On appeal, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer failed to address conflicting evidence regarding the duty to notify and credibility issues.

Furthermore, the Commission found that the appellant had reported the collision at the first reasonable opportunity, satisfying the policy requirements.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was revoked.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The officer had been dispatched to assist park wardens with evicting underage campers and administered a breathalyzer test to the appellant.

The appellant alleged arbitrary detention and Charter breaches.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the Hearing Officer to accept the officer's evidence that the breathalyzer test was voluntary and to conclude that misconduct was not established on clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The allegations stemmed from an incident where the appellant and his friends were evicted from a provincial park for underage drinking and noise.

The officer, called to assist, placed the appellant in his cruiser and administered a breathalyzer test.

The appellant alleged arbitrary detention and Charter breaches.

The Hearing Officer accepted the officer's evidence that the test was voluntary and for the sole purpose of ensuring safe driving upon eviction.

The Commission applied a standard of reasonableness simpliciter, deferred to the Hearing Officer's credibility findings, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a police officer, was found guilty of four allegations of misconduct relating to the misappropriation of approximately $4,000.

The Hearing Officer ordered his dismissal forthwith, a decision upheld by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued against the penalty.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the court found that the Commission properly considered all relevant factors and that dismissal was within the range of available penalties for fraudulent activity by a police officer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The charges related to the misappropriation of public funds through the misuse of police-issued credit cards for personal motorcycle repairs, submitting false receipts for vehicle repairs, and failing to account for cash requisitioned for an informant.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the serious breach of public trust, lack of restitution, and absence of significant mitigating factors.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The misconduct involved the misappropriation of over $4,000 in public funds through the improper use of service credit cards for personal motorcycle repairs, submitting false receipts for vehicle repairs, and failing to account for cash requisitioned for an informant.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the protracted and premeditated nature of the misconduct, the breach of public trust, and the absence of significant mitigating factors.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The misconduct involved the misappropriation of over $4,000 in public funds through false expense claims and forged receipts for personal vehicle repairs.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty, concluding that the deliberate and protracted nature of the misconduct, combined with a lack of remorse and restitution, justified dismissal.

The Town of Prescott and the Prescott Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Prescott Police Service and transition to an integrated policing arrangement with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission found that the proposed arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services to the community.

However, the Commission refused to consent to the abolition at this time because there was no agreement on severance pay for uniformed members and unresolved disputes regarding conditional offers of employment, particularly the OPP's refusal to hire one specific officer.

The Commission set out conditions under which it would reconsider its decision, including submitting the employment dispute to binding arbitration.

In an ongoing human rights hearing regarding a racially poisoned work environment, the respondents moved to disqualify the Commission's proposed expert witness.

The respondents argued that the expert was bound by a confidentiality agreement from his consulting work for the Ministry and that his prior lawsuit against the Ministry for unpaid fees created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the confidentiality agreement did not apply to evidence of human rights infractions or expert opinions on systemic change, and that the fee dispute did not compromise the expert's independence.

However, the adjudicator ordered that the expert testify after the respondents' evidence to avoid prejudice.

In an ongoing human rights proceeding regarding a racially poisoned work environment, the respondents brought a motion to disqualify the Commission's proposed expert witness, Dr. Ralph Agard.

The respondents argued that the expert was bound by a confidentiality agreement from his prior consulting work for the Ministry and that his previous lawsuit against the Ministry for unpaid fees created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the confidentiality agreement did not protect evidence of human rights infractions or evaluations of the workplace atmosphere.

Furthermore, the prior fee dispute did not compromise the expert's independence or transform him into an advocate.

The expert was permitted to testify, though his evidence was ordered to be heard after the respondents' factual evidence.