Ian J. Roland

The appellant, a police officer, appealed three findings of insubordination for refusing to shave his beard in violation of a police services board by-law and a standing order of the Chief of Police.

The appellant argued the policy was unreasonable and therefore not a lawful order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the board had the statutory authority to establish policies regarding personal appearance, making the order lawful.

The Commission distinguished between labour relations matters and police discipline, concluding that the appellant's refusal to obey the lawful order constituted insubordination.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct based on three criminal convictions for assault.

The assaults occurred prior to his employment as a police officer.

The appellant argued the hearing officer relied on evidence not presented at the hearing and applied personal bias regarding spousal abuse.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer properly considered objective factors and that the appellant's numerous criminal convictions severely impaired his credibility and ability to carry out the duties of a police officer, justifying dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for two counts of neglect of duty (sleeping on duty and failing to respond to a break-in) and one count of deceit, as well as the penalties imposed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the Hearing Officer's reasons were inadequate, the evidence on record met the clear and convincing standard to support the convictions.

The Commission upheld the convictions but varied the penalties, reducing the indefinite demotion to a fixed six-month period and reducing the forfeiture of pay for deceit from 40 hours to 16 hours.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services held a hearing into the conduct of the members of the Wallaceburg Police Services Board.

The Board had laid off three members of the police service (two cadets and one civilian communicator) to meet budget cuts, without obtaining the Commission's consent under section 40 of the Police Services Act.

The Commission found that the layoffs constituted a reduction in the size of the force, requiring consent, and that the Board's reliance on the probationary termination provisions in section 44 was improper.

The Commission concluded that the Board members' actions constituted misconduct and a failure to perform their duties in a satisfactory manner.

The four current members of the Board were removed from their positions.