Harry Black

The appellant, a police officer, brought an appeal under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

Before the Commission rendered its decision, the parties advised that the appellant had retired from the respondent police service.

Consequently, the Commission determined it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter and quashed the appeal.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of disciplinary offences and ordered dismissed.

He appealed to the Commission.

After the appeal was heard but before a decision was rendered, the appellant retired.

The Commission held that pursuant to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act, it lacks jurisdiction to continue with an appeal or render a decision once an appellant is no longer a police officer.

The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit under the Police Services Act Code of Conduct and demoting him to third-class constable.

The deceit charge arose from the appellant recording on three Provincial Offence Notices that he had used a LIDAR device to measure speed, when he had actually used RADAR or paced the vehicles.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the appellant intended to deceive was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating the appellant's fabricated testimony as an aggravating factor and by penalizing him for an uncharged intent to mislead the courts.

The penalty was varied to a demotion to second-class constable for six months, and to first-class constable thereafter.

The appellant appealed the penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay imposed on the respondent police officer for discreditable conduct.

The respondent had previously been convicted of assault with a weapon for his actions during the appellant's arrest at the G20 Summit.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing aggravating and mitigating factors, and the intervener argued the Hearing Officer improperly allowed a collateral attack on the criminal conviction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's penalty decision was reasonable and did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack.

The appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence at the hearing of his appeal regarding the penalty imposed on a police officer for misconduct during the G20 protests.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and found that the proposed evidence either could have been adduced at the original hearing with due diligence, was already part of the record, or was irrelevant.

The motion to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add several allegations of discrimination and reprisal against the respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, allowing the applicant to add allegations of harassment and reprisal that occurred within one year of the application and were related to the original complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request to add older allegations relating to a previous supervisor, finding them out of time and distinct from the original application, with no good faith explanation for the delay.

The appellant, a senior police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had stopped a motorist and issued five summonses, but also prepared a second set of six summonses using the driving history of another individual with the same name.

The officer failed to serve the second set of summonses but later testified in court that he had, resulting in the innocent motorist being convicted in absentia, fined, and incarcerated for five days.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt, noting it was well-supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding the officer's actions constituted egregious misconduct that caused a serious miscarriage of justice and irreparably damaged his usefulness to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had issued two sets of summonses to a motorist but only served one set, leading to the motorist being convicted in absentia on the unserved charges and wrongfully incarcerated for five days.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the evidence supported the conviction and that the officer's deliberate dishonesty, lack of remorse, and the severe consequences to the innocent motorist justified the penalty of dismissal.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the Licensee for allegedly permitting liquor to be sold to intoxicated persons and permitting drunkenness on the premises on two separate dates.

The Board found no violation for the first date due to inconsistencies in the inspector's evidence and lack of proof of intoxication or sale.

However, based on unrefuted evidence from two undercover inspectors regarding the second date, the Board found that the Licensee permitted drunkenness on the premises.

The Board requested written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Ridgelane Holdings Inc., operating as The Frog & Firkin, alleging the licensee permitted drunkenness on the premises.

The parties proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition, wherein the licensee admitted to the breach.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 7-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of insubordination and discreditable conduct against two police officers.

The appellant alleged the officers engaged in racial profiling and misconduct during an encounter in his apartment building, and argued the Hearing Officer displayed bias and made procedural errors.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest errors in the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and concluding that the clear and convincing evidence standard for misconduct was not met.

The Commission also dismissed a motion by the respondents to introduce fresh evidence regarding the Hearing Officer's written decision.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for misconduct (insubordination) for failing to attend court.

The officer had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at the same time.

He attended the medical bureau and forgot to attend court due to the excitement of potentially returning to work.

The Hearing Officer accepted his evidence but found it did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, holding that an honest mistake in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse, and set aside the finding of guilt.

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 constable, was convicted of a disciplinary offence for refusing a lawful order to patrol outside the Morgentaler Clinic, citing his religious beliefs against abortion.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the order to keep the peace did not violate his Charter rights or constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code, as a constable's duty to preserve the peace must be performed impartially regardless of personal conscience.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, reducing it to a demotion in rank, noting the appellant's good service record and his undertaking to obey lawful orders in the future.