Joanne E. Mulcahy

A police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) that dismissed his appeal from a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct.

The officer argued the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction because the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that OCCPS applied an incorrect legal test to determine when sufficient facts came to the Chief's attention, rendering its decision unreasonable.

The Court further held that the officer's guilty plea did not waive his right to appeal the jurisdictional defect, as consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a statutory tribunal.

The affected police officers requested a stay of a Tribunal order requiring the disclosure of documents relating to other complaints of sexual orientation discrimination against them, pending their application for judicial review.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for a stay.

While acknowledging a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal found the officers would not suffer irreparable harm, as the documents would only be disclosed to the Commission and complainant subject to an implied undertaking, and any privacy concerns could be addressed if the documents were later tendered as evidence.

The Tribunal also found the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as it would unduly delay a proceeding that had already been ongoing for four years.

The request for a stay was denied.

The appellant, a police officer with 31 years of unblemished service, appealed a penalty of 40 hours forfeiture imposed by a Hearing Officer for discreditable conduct.

The officer had pled guilty to failing to report an off-duty minor motor vehicle accident.

The parties had presented a joint submission recommending a 20-hour forfeiture, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of a harsher penalty.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred by relying on information not in evidence, mischaracterizing the misconduct by referencing an abandoned Criminal Code charge, and failing to provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the joint submission.

The penalty was varied to the jointly recommended 20 hours.

The Commission referred a human rights complaint to the Tribunal under s. 33(6) of the Human Rights Code after the respondent police board refused to produce certain documents during the investigation.

The complaint alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation during an arrest and detention.

The Commission brought a motion seeking production of various documents, including officer notes, video logs, personnel files, and arrest statistics, prior to filing its hearing brief.

The Tribunal held that while preliminary matters should generally not be raised before hearing briefs are filed, the specific circumstances warranted severing the disclosure requirement from the hearing brief filing.

The Tribunal ordered the production of arguably relevant documents, including prior complaints of sexual orientation discrimination against the involved officers and relevant video monitoring information, but denied overbroad requests for complete personnel files and statistical data on arrests.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a finding of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant discharged his firearm at the tires of a fleeing stolen vehicle during a dangerous pursuit.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer and the Commission applied the wrong test by focusing on the objective reasonableness of the force used rather than the appellant's subjective 'sole purpose' for discharging the firearm under s. 8 of O. Reg. 546/99.

The appeal was allowed and the charge of discreditable conduct was dismissed.

Several police officers sought judicial review of a decision by the Toronto Police Services Board granting the Chief of Police an extension of time to serve notices of disciplinary hearings under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The officers argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to provide full disclosure of the investigative brief, denying an oral hearing, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's procedure met the minimal requirements of fairness for an administrative, pre-charge decision and that the Board's decision to allow the delay was reasonable given the unprecedented complexity of the underlying criminal investigation.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination, as well as the penalty imposed for one of the discreditable conduct counts.

The charges arose from an incident where the officer directed a rude comment at a motorist, issued an unjustified traffic ticket, and subsequently failed to attend court for the traffic matter.

The Commission upheld the findings of guilt, concluding they were not void of evidentiary foundation.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the forfeiture from five days to three days, noting the officer's unblemished 15-year service record and the principles of progressive discipline.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on two counts of discreditable conduct and one count of insubordination, as well as the penalty imposed for one of the discreditable conduct counts.

The charges arose from a traffic stop where the officer allegedly made a rude comment to a motorist and subsequently issued a questionable traffic ticket, and later failed to attend court for the ticket.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the findings of guilt, concluding they were not void of evidentiary foundation.

However, the Commission found the penalty of forfeiture of five days off for issuing the ticket to be excessive given the officer's unblemished record, and reduced it to three days off.

The applicants, several police officers, brought a motion for a limited publication ban regarding Notices of Hearing and the Chief of Police's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that inadequate notice was given for the relief regarding the Notices of Hearing, and that the applicants failed to satisfy the Dagenais/Mentuck test for a publication ban on the Chief's report, agreeing with the prior endorsement of the motion judge.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and penalty for the disciplinary offence of being absent without leave.

On Christmas Day, the appellant's supervisor gave him permission to remain at home on standby instead of reporting for his scheduled shift.

The Hearing Officer convicted the appellant, finding that the supervisor lacked authority to grant such leave and the appellant should have known this.

The Commission allowed the appeal and substituted an acquittal, holding that the appellant was entitled to rely on his supervisor's explicit permission as a reasonable excuse for his absence, regardless of whether the supervisor actually possessed the formal authority to grant it.

The applicants, police officers facing criminal charges, brought a motion for a publication ban and a sealing order regarding a confidential report by the Chief of Police.

The report was filed in support of an application for leave to serve notices of hearing under the Police Services Act.

The applicants argued that media access to the report would prejudice their right to a fair trial and risk witness tainting.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a serious risk to the administration of justice, as the report was general in nature and alternative measures like challenges for cause were available.

The moving party, the Chief of Police, brought a motion to have two applications for judicial review heard at the same time pursuant to Rule 6.01(1).

Both applications arose from a decision of the Toronto Police Services Board regarding the delay in serving notices of hearing under the Police Services Act.

The court found that the applications arose out of the same transaction or occurrence and shared common questions of law and fact.

To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results, the court granted the motion and ordered the applications to be heard together.

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 police officer appealed a penalty of forfeiture of 20 days' pay imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to neglect of duty regarding a fatal accident investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction under section 68(1) of the Police Services Act by imposing a penalty not enumerated in the statute, and made numerous errors in applying sentencing principles.

The Commission substituted a penalty of forfeiture of six days or 48 hours off, noting the systemic failures and lack of supervision that contributed to the officer's neglect.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision imposing a forfeiture of 20 days or 160 hours of pay for neglect of duty in relation to a fatal accident investigation.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made several manifest errors, including imposing a penalty not authorized by the Police Services Act, considering uncharged allegations, misapplying sentencing principles, and failing to consider the systemic lack of support provided to the officer.

The appeal was allowed and the penalty was reduced to a forfeiture of 6 days or 48 hours off.

The applicant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police discipline proceedings against the respondent officer.

The Commission dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the refusal to amend the charge, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals of interlocutory orders.

The Commission found that leave was not required to appeal the misconduct finding, as it could be appealed as of right.

Finally, the Commission granted leave to appeal the penalty decision (a reprimand), establishing a three-part test for granting leave under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act and finding that the Charter issues raised were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The applicant complainant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police discipline proceedings against the respondent officer.

The Commission held it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an interlocutory decision refusing to amend the notice of charge.

It further held that the applicant's appeal of the misconduct finding did not require leave, as it proceeded as of right under s. 70(3) of the Police Services Act.

Finally, the Commission established a three-part test for granting leave to appeal a penalty decision under s. 70(4) and granted leave, finding that the appropriate penalty for breaches of fundamental Charter rights is a matter of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The applicant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police misconduct.

The Commission denied leave to appeal the interlocutory decision refusing to amend the charge, finding jurisdiction only extends to final orders.

The Commission found no leave was required to appeal the misconduct finding, as it proceeds as of right.

Finally, the Commission established a three-part test for granting a complainant leave to appeal a penalty decision under s. 70(4) of the Police Services Act, and granted leave on the basis that the underlying Charter breaches were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from first class to second class constable for six months, imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of misconduct for forging his wife's signature on loan documents.

He had received an absolute discharge in criminal court.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer made no manifest errors in principle and that the penalty was well within the appropriate range given the two deliberate acts of forgery.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from first class to second class constable for six months, imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct stemmed from forging his wife's signature on loan documents, for which he received an absolute discharge in criminal court.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer made no manifest error in principle and that the penalty was well within the appropriate range given the deliberate nature of the two acts of forgery.