Joanne E. Mulcahy

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from first class constable 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 previously received an absolute discharge for the related criminal offences.

The Commission found that the hearing officer did not commit a manifest error in principle and that the penalty was not clearly or manifestly excessive, given the two deliberate acts of forgery.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a three-month demotion in rank.

The charges arose from a conversation in which the appellant implicitly told a subordinate officer, who had previously filed a human rights complaint against him, that he was not welcome back to the platoon.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's argument that the Hearing Officer's subsequent employment with the Commission created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding ample evidence that the appellant's conduct was a reprisal that would bring discredit to the police service.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing it to a loss of 48 hours' pay, because the Hearing Officer erred by considering expunged informal discipline records as a prior record.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a three-month gradation in rank.

The charges arose from a conversation in which the appellant allegedly made comments to a subordinate officer that constituted a reprisal for a previous human rights complaint and a retraction of a prior apology.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding a reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence of discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission found the penalty was harsh and excessive because the Hearing Officer improperly considered expunged informal discipline records.

The penalty was reduced to a loss of 6 days or 48 hours time.

The Appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a three-month gradation in rank.

The charges arose from a conversation with a subordinate officer who had previously filed a human rights complaint against him.

The Commission dismissed the Appellant's arguments regarding a reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the conviction, finding ample evidence that the Appellant's conduct constituted a reprisal.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in considering expunged informal discipline records, and reduced the penalty to a loss of 48 hours' time.

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 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.

The applicant police service brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a disciplinary penalty imposed on the respondent police officer pending his appeal.

The officer had pled guilty to discreditable conduct following criminal convictions for impaired driving and assault, and agreed to a 12-month demotion, but appealed the condition that he must re-qualify for promotion afterward.

The Commission held it had the authority under section 25(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to lift the stay.

Finding that the appeal was not frivolous but that the officer would suffer no practical prejudice by serving the undisputed 12-month demotion while awaiting the appeal, the Commission granted the motion and lifted the stay.

The York Regional Police Service brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a disciplinary penalty imposed on Staff Sergeant Kyle pending his appeal.

The officer had pled guilty to discreditable conduct following criminal convictions for impaired driving and assault, and agreed to a 12-month demotion to sergeant.

He appealed only the hearing officer's direction regarding his status after the 12-month period.

The Commission held it had the authority under section 25(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to lift the stay.

Finding that the officer would suffer no practical prejudice by commencing the undisputed 12-month demotion while his appeal on the post-demotion status proceeded, the Commission granted the motion and lifted the stay.

Two newspaper reporters applied for judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner upholding the refusal by the Police and the Ministry of the Attorney General to disclose various police records.

The requested records included the names of all police officers, public complaints data, disciplinary tribunal dockets, and criminal charges against officers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Inquiry Officers' decisions applying exemptions for safety, privacy, and employment-related matters were reasonable and correct.

The appellant police officer appealed three findings of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalties, including dismissal, arising from allegations of inappropriate sexual comments and contact with female members of the public.

The Commission overturned two convictions due to significant delay in prosecution and issues with the investigation, including the destruction of survey records.

The Commission upheld the third conviction relating to a 1994 incident but found the penalty of immediate dismissal too harsh, substituting a penalty of demotion to second class constable for six months and mandatory sexual harassment training.