Harry G. Black, Q.C.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act charges against the respondent officers.

The respondent officers brought a motion to dismiss the request for leave to appeal, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the proposed appellant failed to serve the Solicitor General and the Independent Police Review Director within the 30-day statutory period.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that under section 87 of the Police Services Act and the Commission's rules, service on statutory interveners is not required until after leave to appeal has been granted.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer, which imposed a forfeiture of five days' pay on the respondent officer for discreditable conduct related to an assault during the G20 Summit.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the matters raised were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large, satisfying the third branch of the test for leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing misconduct charges against two police officers for allegedly making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The appellant had been arrested for wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence after officers observed him wearing an orange bandana over his face.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges based entirely on finding the appellant not credible, without analyzing the legal elements of a lawful arrest under the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons inadequate, as they failed to address whether the officers had subjective and objective reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing before a different Hearing Officer.

Three police officers appealed the penalty of dismissal (or order to resign) imposed by a Hearing Officer after they pled guilty to multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, discreditable conduct, and insubordination.

The misconduct primarily involved their participation in a BBM group where they shared degrading and discriminatory photographs and comments about members of the public and other officers, as well as failing to report another officer's criminal activities.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding that the Hearing Officer did not misapprehend expert psychiatric evidence regarding group dynamics, properly weighed mitigating factors such as rehabilitation and guilty pleas against the egregious nature of the misconduct, and correctly applied the legal test for dismissal.

The Commission upheld the conclusion that the officers' actions irreparably damaged the reputation of the police service, justifying the ultimate penalty of dismissal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of immediate dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to four counts of misconduct, including neglect of duty, deceit, and two counts of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved engaging in sexual activity with members of the public while on duty and in uniform, as well as leaving a scheduled training seminar to meet a woman and subsequently falsifying duty reports.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly considered the relevant factors including the officer's potential for rehabilitation, and imposed a penalty consistent with similar infractions.

The appellant, a civilian, and the respondent, a police sergeant, both appealed a disciplinary decision.

The sergeant had been found guilty of neglect of duty for denying the civilian his right to counsel for approximately 90 minutes after holding him incommunicado for over 27 hours due to officer safety concerns during a raid.

The Commission upheld the finding of misconduct, agreeing that the Charter violation began when the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed the civilian's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter violation, and substituted a penalty of reduction in rank for six months.

The appellant, Fred Parker, and the respondent, Sergeant Randy Blakely, both appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding Sergeant Blakely guilty of neglect of duty for denying Mr. Parker his right to counsel for approximately 90 minutes.

Mr. Parker was held incommunicado for over 27 hours following his arrest due to officer safety concerns during a related police raid.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the Charter breach began only when the safety threat subsided.

However, the Commission allowed Mr. Parker's appeal on penalty, finding a reprimand inadequate for a serious Charter violation, and substituted a penalty of reduction in rank for six months.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed findings of guilt for four counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit, as well as the penalty of demotion to 3rd class constable.

The misconduct arose from his failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar, his failure to ensure his subordinate investigated, and his subsequent false statement to an investigating officer.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty to a demotion to 2nd class constable for two years, finding the original penalty unduly emphasized punishment and failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's 22-year unblemished record and potential for rehabilitation.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed findings of guilt for four counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit, as well as the penalty of demotion to 3rd class Constable.

The misconduct arose from his failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and his subsequent false statements to an investigating officer.

The Commission upheld the findings of guilt, finding clear and convincing evidence of the misconduct.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the original penalty too severe given the appellant's 22-year unblemished record, and varied the penalty to a demotion to 2nd class Constable for two years.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of demotion to sergeant for one year, after which he would be required to compete for promotion to his former rank of staff sergeant.

The penalty arose from off-duty conduct resulting in criminal convictions for impaired driving and assault, during which the appellant used racial slurs against a citizen.

The appellant argued the indeterminate nature of the demotion was illegal under the Police Services Act and was harsh and excessive.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Act permits a hearing officer to specify a demotion period that requires an officer to meet normal promotional requirements, and that the penalty was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct.

The appellant, a staff sergeant with 29 years of service, appealed a disciplinary penalty imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

While off duty, the appellant drove impaired, struck another vehicle, directed racial slurs at the vehicle's owner, and assaulted him.

The Hearing Officer imposed an agreed-upon penalty of demotion to sergeant for one year, but ordered that the appellant must enter the promotional process to regain his former rank rather than returning automatically.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that section 68(1)(c) of the Police Services Act permits a Hearing Officer to specify a demotion that requires an officer to compete for promotion, and that the penalty was not harsh or excessive given the serious nature of the misconduct.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a disciplinary penalty of demotion to sergeant for one year, followed by a requirement to compete for promotion to his former rank of staff sergeant.

The penalty arose from off-duty conduct involving impaired driving, racial slurs, and assault, for which he received criminal convictions.

The appellant argued the indeterminate nature of the demotion was illegal under section 68(1)(c) of the Police Services Act and was harsh and excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory language permitting a hearing officer to specify the 'manner and period' of demotion includes requiring an officer to meet normal promotional requirements, and that the penalty was appropriate given the serious misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for deceit.

He had been found guilty of willfully making a false statement by denying possession of his police notebooks, which he claimed were retained by the police service after an internal investigation.

After the initial hearing, the missing notebooks were discovered in a secure police storage room.

The Commission admitted this new evidence on appeal and found that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were based on manifest error and a misapprehension of the evidence.

The conviction was overturned.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The officers had responded to a call about suspicious persons and recovered a baseball bat and pool cue, but did not immediately report these findings to dispatch, unaware that another unit was investigating a nearby assault involving a baseball bat.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the penalties, finding that the officers exercised reasonable discretion based on the limited information available to them at the time, and could not be judged with the benefit of hindsight.

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.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of resignation or dismissal.

Pending the appeal, the appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh documentary and viva voce evidence regarding his character and work performance.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to have the appellant's salary held in trust pending the appeal.

The Commission applied the Palmer test and admitted one performance evaluation report but denied the other fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced at the original hearing.

The Commission dismissed the respondent's motion, holding that under the Police Services Act, an officer who has not been outright dismissed is entitled to continue receiving their salary pending the final disposition of their appeal.