Brian Fazackerley

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to second-class constable for six months, imposed after he was found guilty of discreditable conduct for attempting to intimidate a citizen into pleading guilty to a traffic charge.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and failed to apply the principle of progressive discipline.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's employment history, and the principle of progressive discipline, and that the penalty was within the reasonable range of options.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to serve the notice of appeal on the affected parties within the 30-day limitation period required by the Police Services Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant did not file responding materials or attend the motion hearing.

The Commission found that while the Act itself only explicitly requires service on the Commission within 30 days, the Commission's Rules mandate service on all affected parties within the same timeframe.

Because the appellant failed to comply with the Rules and did not request an extension, the motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failure to comply with the service requirements under subsection 70(1) of the Police Services Act and section 8.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant failed to serve the affected parties with the Notice of Appeal within the 30-day limitation period.

The appellant did not file responding materials or attend the motion hearing to request an extension of time.

The Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to serve the notice of appeal on the affected parties within the 30-day limitation period required by the Police Services Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant served the Commission within the time limit but served the respondents by mail outside the 30-day window.

The Commission found that while the Act itself only explicitly requires service on the Commission within 30 days, the Commission's Rules of Practice mandate service on the affected parties within the same timeframe.

As the appellant failed to comply with the Rules and did not request an extension or attend the motion, the Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer was suspended from duty with pay following a criminal charge, with a condition prohibiting him from entering police property.

He subsequently entered a police division to retrieve videotape disclosure for his criminal defence, leading to a disciplinary conviction for insubordination.

On appeal, he argued the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider his defence of lawful excuse or honest and mistaken belief.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest and overriding error in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the appellant's belief was unreasonable.

The appellant police officer was suspended from duty with pay following a criminal charge, with a condition prohibiting him from entering police property.

While suspended, he entered the police station to retrieve videotape disclosure for his criminal defence, leading to a disciplinary conviction for insubordination.

On appeal, he argued the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider his defence of lawful excuse or honest and mistaken belief.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest and overriding error in the Hearing Officer's rejection of the defence, as the appellant's unilateral decision to enter the property without inquiring with authority was unreasonable.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct for intentionally making numerous harassing phone calls to a fellow officer.

The calls consisted of background noise and were made from the appellant's cell phone using a speed dial key.

The appellant argued the calls were accidental.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that it could not interfere with the Hearing Officer's decision unless it lacked an evidentiary foundation or contained a manifest error in principle.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer carefully analyzed the evidence, including expert testimony on accidental activation, and reasonably concluded that the calls were intentional.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for allegedly making numerous harassing phone calls to a fellow officer.

The calls consisted of background noise and were made from the appellant's cell phone, which had the complainant's number programmed on speed dial.

The appellant argued the calls were accidental.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision to reject the accidental activation defence was supported by the evidence and contained no manifest error in principle.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making numerous harassing phone calls to a colleague.

The appellant argued the calls were accidentally made by his cell phone's speed dial function.

The Hearing Officer rejected the accidental activation defence and found the calls were intentional.

On appeal, the Commission held that its role was restricted to determining if the decision lacked evidentiary foundation or contained a manifest error in principle.

Finding neither, the Commission deferred to the Hearing Officer and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The conviction stemmed from an overheard conversation in which the appellant allegedly made reprisal comments about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint against him.

The appellant argued the hearing officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of one officer who overheard only a portion of the conversation.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments he allegedly made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed witness credibility, applied the correct legal principles, and reached a conclusion supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments he allegedly made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed witness credibility and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal of his termination from employment as a police cadet.

The Commission held that a police cadet is not a 'police officer' within the meaning of the Police Services Act and therefore has no right of appeal under Part V. Furthermore, the Commission found it had no statutory authority to extend the 30-day time limit for filing an appeal, and that even if the appellant were a probationary police officer, his termination would be governed by section 44(3) without a right of appeal under Part V. The motion was allowed and the appeal was quashed.