James A. Girvin

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct involved the appellant interfering in an impaired driving investigation of a wedding guest and subsequently lying about his involvement.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by not recusing himself for bias, refusing to order disclosure of prosecution witness notes, and misapprehending voice identification evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, upholding the claim of litigation privilege over the witness notes, and concluding the Hearing Officer's findings of guilt were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to fourth class constable for 18 months, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved fabricating text messages to disparage his ex-wife's new partner and improperly registering individuals as confidential informants to conceal his actions.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by effectively penalizing him for deceit and insubordination, which were not charged, and that the penalty was unduly harsh.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's inferences were reasonably drawn from the Agreed Statement of Facts and the penalty was justified given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct.

The applicant, an OPP Sergeant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding findings of misconduct for writing a letter to a newspaper criticizing a helicopter relocation.

The applicant argued the Hearing Officer was biased and erred in denying a disclosure motion, which prevented him from establishing a whistleblower defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and agreeing with the Commission that the whistleblower defence failed because the applicant did not first raise his concerns internally with his chain of command.

The applicant, an off-duty police officer, spoke at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization despite being ordered not to attend or speak.

He was convicted of insubordination and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction but upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under s. 49 of the Police Services Act.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the Commission's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider s. 80(2) of the Act, which requires a connection between off-duty conduct and the occupational requirements or reputation of the police force.

Given the Commission's findings on the discreditable conduct charge, the court concluded the s. 80(2) test could not be met and revoked the insubordination conviction.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from his failure to properly investigate a wellness check on two vulnerable women, one of whom was later found deceased in their home.

The officer had driven by the residence but did not exit his vehicle or knock on the door, assuming the house was abandoned.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the officer failed in his common law duty to protect life and safety and lacked a lawful excuse for his lack of diligence.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination arising from an off-duty incident at a Human Rights Tribunal hearing, where he loudly accused superior officers of being racists.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the objective test for discreditable conduct was met and that off-duty conduct could constitute insubordination under the Police Services Act where there is a connection to the reputation of the police force.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours was confirmed.

The appellant, a police sergeant and helicopter pilot, appealed his convictions for breach of confidence and discreditable conduct, as well as his penalty of a one-year demotion.

The charges arose after he published a letter in a local newspaper criticizing the OPP's decision to relocate a helicopter unit, arguing it jeopardized public safety.

On appeal, he argued the Hearing Officer erred in denying disclosure, refusing to recuse herself for bias, and rejecting his whistleblower defence.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and agreeing that the whistleblower defence failed because the appellant did not attempt to raise his concerns internally before going to the media.

The convictions and penalty were confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of forfeiture of 80 hours imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved transporting his family in an OPP vehicle without authorization and being less than forthcoming during the subsequent investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made an overriding error in principle by accepting a guilty plea based on the appellant driving a short distance, but then using a factual finding that the appellant drove the entire four-hour trip as an aggravating factor to increase the penalty.

The Commission varied the penalty to a forfeiture of 60 hours, finding it more reasonable given the actual basis of the conviction and the mitigating factors, including the appellant's exemplary employment history.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from his failure to properly supervise a sudden death investigation, including failing to secure the scene, preserve evidence, and call specialized units after concluding prematurely that a motor vehicle was not involved.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Hearing Officer's factual findings and confirmed the conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence that the appellant's conduct crossed the line from a performance issue to misconduct.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for speaking at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization while off-duty, contrary to a direct order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under section 49(1) of the Police Services Act.

However, the Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction, ruling that the Hearing Officer erred by applying a subjective test rather than an objective reasonable person test to assess whether the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct.

The conviction arose from a sarcastic internal report the appellant wrote criticizing an order to conduct a missing person investigation, which he believed was a conflict of interest.

The Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Hearing Officer.

However, the Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct was unreasonable, as the appellant's conduct should have been treated as a performance issue rather than misconduct.

The conviction was revoked.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit for falsifying Daily Activity Reporting (DAR) records.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in finding an intent to deceive, misapprehended the evidence, and improperly admitted statements he made during a compelled interview under section 83(6) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably inferred an intent to deceive from the detailed falsifications and the potential benefit to the appellant.

The Commission also held that section 83(6) protects an officer from being compelled to testify at a hearing, but does not preclude the admission of statements made during a disciplinary investigation.

The appellant police officer was involved in an off-duty domestic altercation and subsequently ordered by a superior to answer questions during a Professional Standards Bureau investigation.

The appellant refused to answer, arguing there was no legal authority to compel statements regarding off-duty conduct, and was found guilty of insubordination.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirmed the finding of guilt, holding that the order was lawful and that police officers can be compelled to answer questions regarding off-duty conduct that may amount to misconduct.

The Appellant, an off-duty police officer, removed mulch from a school property without permission and subsequently misled the investigating officer.

He was found guilty of discreditable conduct and demoted from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for one year.

He appealed the finding of guilt and the penalty to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decisions on credibility, admission of hearsay evidence, and penalty were reasonable and supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, consumed alcohol and a sleeping pill before driving his personal vehicle, rear-ending another vehicle, and failing to remain at the scene.

He was subsequently arrested for impaired driving and pleaded guilty to a Highway Traffic Act charge of failing to remain, as well as a disciplinary charge of discreditable conduct.

The Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of demotion from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for 16 months.

The appellant appealed the penalty, arguing it was harsh and excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the serious nature of the misconduct and the need for deterrence, and that the penalty was reasonable.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a penalty of 80 hours forfeiture imposed after being found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to properly maintain his police notebooks over a 29-month period.

The appellant argued the hearing officer was biased, misconstrued facts, and imposed a harsh and excessive penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and appropriately considered all relevant sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the public interest.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty.

After the appeal hearing but before the Commission rendered its decision, the appellant retired from the police service.

The Commission determined that under the Police Services Act, its jurisdiction over disciplinary matters ends once an individual ceases to be a police officer.

Consequently, the Commission found it lacked jurisdiction to continue the appeal and issue a decision on the merits.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty and the resulting penalty of a 40-hour forfeiture.

The misconduct charge arose from the appellant's failure to properly investigate a domestic violence complaint reported by a member of the public.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility and in concluding that there was sufficient information to warrant further investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer applied the correct legal principles in assessing credibility and that his findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting that the Hearing Officer appropriately weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors, including the seriousness of failing to properly respond to a domestic violence complaint.

The applicant's bargaining agent, the Ontario Provincial Police Association (OPPA), filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status.

The Tribunal noted its established practice of granting intervenor status to a union or association representing an applicant in a bargaining unit, absent exceptional circumstances.

Finding that the OPPA had a significant interest in the allegations and could offer a unique perspective, the Tribunal granted the OPPA intervenor status.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after failing to properly report a minor collision between his cruiser and a fire truck, and initially misleading his supervisor about the cause of the damage.

The hearing officer imposed a penalty of 40 hours forfeiture.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the hearing officer failed to provide sufficient reasons for the penalty and did not adequately weigh mitigating factors, including the officer's 23-year unblemished record and guilty plea.

The appeal was allowed and the penalty reduced to 20 hours forfeiture.