Gavin J. May

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The Hearing Officer imposed a 21-month demotion to Second Class Constable.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by overemphasizing aggravating factors, such as policy memoranda, and failing to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's low breathalyzer readings, lack of impairment indicia, and exemplary work record.

The Commission allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty to a 12-month demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of a 20-month demotion from Sergeant to First Class Constable imposed following his guilty plea to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved off-duty impaired driving and an altercation with a witness.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by considering facts not in evidence, giving insufficient weight to mitigating factors, misdirecting himself on internal policies, and improperly differentiating joint submission cases.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found no clear error in principle and confirmed the penalty, emphasizing the seriousness of drinking and driving by police officers.

The appellant police officer brought a motion within her disciplinary appeal to adduce fresh evidence and obtain disclosure regarding her permanent removal from the Emergency Response Team (ERT).

She argued the removal constituted disguised discipline that resulted in a loss of specialty and overtime pay, which should have been considered by the Hearing Officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test and granted the request to adduce fresh evidence regarding the financial impact of her removal.

The Commission also applied the West Park Hospital test and ordered the respondent to disclose materials related to the removal decision, finding the information arguably relevant to the live issue of whether the removal was disguised discipline or a purely operational decision.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct and a penalty of demotion arising from an allegation that he referred to his police baton using a racial slur.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to apply the proper legal test for credibility equally to both the appellant and the complainant.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's credibility findings unreasonable as they ignored objective evidence, such as swipe card records, that contradicted the complainant's version of events.

The finding of misconduct was vacated and a finding of not guilty was substituted.

Constable Pigeau appealed a finding of guilt for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and the resulting penalty of a loss of 16 hours off and directed training.

The misconduct arose from an incident where the officer made physical contact with a pedestrian he suspected of public intoxication, leading to an altercation and an unnecessary arrest.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upheld the finding of misconduct, applying a reasonableness standard of review and finding that the officer lacked legal justification for the physical contact.

However, the Commission found the penalty to be harsh and excessive, varying it to a reprimand and a requirement to attend refresher training on powers of arrest.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding and penalty but failed to serve the complainant, who was a party to the original proceedings, with the Notice of Appeal or related materials.

The Commission held that the complainant is a party to the appeal and must be served.

To protect the complainant's rights without unduly prejudicing the appellant for counsel's oversight, the Commission ordered the appellant and respondent police service to serve the complainant within 21 days and adjourned the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a two-year demotion imposed for discreditable conduct after he drove a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol and was involved in a single-vehicle collision.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by treating the officer's delay in reporting the collision as an aggravating factor, as this allegation had been withdrawn on consent.

Given the mitigating factors, including a guilty plea and positive performance evaluations, the Commission allowed the appeal in part and reduced the penalty to a one-year demotion.

The appellant filed a public complaint against a police officer, which led to a disciplinary hearing where the officer was found not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant appealed the decision to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

Before the appeal could be heard, the officer retired from the police force.

The Commission held a motion to determine its jurisdiction and concluded that under the Police Services Act, it has no jurisdiction to conduct a disciplinary appeal regarding an individual who is no longer a police officer.

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 appellant, a police officer, faced disciplinary charges for discreditable conduct related to a fire in a property room.

He brought preliminary motions before the Hearing Officer to dismiss the charges for failing to meet the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the motions.

The appellant appealed these preliminary rulings to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 70(1) of the Act.

The Commission held that its jurisdiction under section 70(1) is limited to appeals of final orders.

Because the Hearing Officer's rulings did not finally dispose of the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, they were interlocutory.

Consequently, the appeal was deemed premature and dismissed, and the disciplinary hearing was directed to proceed.

The appellant police officer sought to appeal two preliminary rulings by a Hearing Officer that denied his motions to dismiss disciplinary charges for failing to meet the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that its jurisdiction under section 70(1) of the Act is limited to appeals of final decisions.

Because the Hearing Officer's rulings did not finally dispose of the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, they were interlocutory.

The appeal was dismissed as premature.

The appellant police officer sought to appeal two preliminary rulings by a Hearing Officer that denied his motions to dismiss a disciplinary charge for allegedly failing to meet the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission held that its jurisdiction under section 70(1) of the Act is limited to appeals of final orders.

Because the Hearing Officer's rulings did not finally dispose of the disciplinary allegations against the appellant, they were interlocutory.

The appeal was dismissed as premature, and the disciplinary hearing was directed to proceed.

The appellant police officer appealed an interlocutory decision of a Hearing Officer requiring him to elect whether to call evidence before ruling on a motion for non-suit in a disciplinary hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that its jurisdiction under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act is restricted to appeals of final orders.

The Commission also provided guidance that the procedure for motions for non-suit in administrative proceedings conforms with civil court practice, requiring the defendant to elect whether to call evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed an interlocutory ruling by a Hearing Officer in a disciplinary proceeding.

The Hearing Officer had required the appellant to elect whether to call evidence before ruling on a motion for non-suit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that its appellate jurisdiction under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act is restricted to final orders.

The Commission also provided guidance that motions for non-suit in administrative proceedings should follow the civil procedure requiring a defendant to elect whether to call evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed an interlocutory ruling made by a Hearing Officer during a disciplinary hearing.

The Hearing Officer had ruled that the appellant must elect whether to call evidence before a motion for non-suit could be decided.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal as premature, holding that under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act, it only has jurisdiction to hear appeals of final decisions, not interlocutory procedural rulings.

The applicant, a supplier of portable toilets, appealed an inspector's order issued to a constructor regarding inadequate toilet and clean-up facilities at a construction site.

The inspector found that the portable toilets lacked functioning traps, paper towels, and hot running water, contrary to O. Reg. 213/91.

The Board found the inspector's evidence credible and uncontradicted regarding the state of the facilities on the day of inspection.

The Board dismissed the appeal, concluding that the order was justified and that the applicant was not prejudiced by any alleged lack of clarity in the order.