Lynda A. Bordeleau

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved operating a police vehicle with an expired licence, failing to immediately report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic outside his jurisdiction, and deceiving his supervisor about the incident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable and the penalty of dismissal proportionate, particularly given the appellant's recent prior discipline resulting in a demotion.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who pled guilty to neglect of duty regarding a sexual assault investigation.

The hearing officer had accepted a joint submission for the forfeiture of 64 hours of time.

The Commission applied the test for leave to appeal and found that the decision was not clearly wrong, nor did the issues raised by the appellant rise to the level of significant importance to the policing profession or the community at large.

The request for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering his dismissal after he pleaded guilty to insubordination and discreditable conduct, including unauthorized CPIC queries, illegal drug use, and requesting a ticket be voided.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding a PTSD diagnosis.

The Commission dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, concluding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the dispositional factors and the severity of the misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering her to resign or face termination after she pleaded guilty to four counts of misconduct, including deceit and neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved forging supervisors' signatures on reports, lying about working penalty hours, and failing to attend court.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in failing to find a nexus between her misconduct and her psychological disabilities, which included the impact of a miscarriage and the deaths of loved ones.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded there was no connection between the disabilities and the deceitful conduct, and properly applied the dispositional factors in determining that the appellant's usefulness as a police officer had been annulled.

The appellant police officer appealed her disciplinary convictions on the grounds that the Hearing Officer's private lunches with the prosecutor created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the private lunches did create a reasonable apprehension of bias, the appellant had waived her right to raise the issue because her experienced representative failed to object at the earliest opportunity and instead waited until after the unfavourable decision on the merits was rendered.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and penalties were confirmed.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal continue to hold his human rights application in abeyance for a further six months due to his medical condition.

The applicant provided a medical note indicating an inability to participate in a summary hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the abeyance period, but noted that any future requests for extension may require the doctor to provide evidence in person or by telephone.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin, disability, and marital status.

The respondent requested dismissal of several allegations due to delay and argued that others had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the historical allegations did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations, as there was no nexus between them, and dismissed them for delay because the applicant's desire to resolve matters informally did not constitute a good faith explanation.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations against one acting sergeant for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant indicated he had witnesses who could testify to discriminatory comments.

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.

Constable Mulholland appealed the penalty imposed by a Hearing Officer for multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, insubordination, discreditable conduct, and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a demotion with conditions, which the appellant argued was harsh and excessive given his diagnoses of PTSD and substance abuse.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the penalty factors, including the seriousness of the multiple acts of misconduct and the mitigating medical evidence, and that the penalty did not violate the duty to accommodate.

The Waterloo Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a penalty decision on the basis that the notice of appeal was filed outside the 30-day statutory time limit.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing despite being notified.

The Commission found that the faxed notice of appeal was deemed received on the 31st day, and held that it has no jurisdiction to extend or waive the statutory time periods under the Police Services Act.

The motion was granted and the appeal 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 police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to five charges of misconduct, including insubordination and discreditable conduct, arising from over 150 unauthorized CPIC and PIP searches and inappropriate use of police equipment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review to the Hearing Officer's decision.

The Commission found no manifest errors, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the evidence, assessed credibility, and applied appropriate sentencing principles.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of immediate dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after being found guilty of multiple counts of misconduct, including neglect of duty, breach of confidence, and insubordination.

The misconduct involved a prolonged pattern of unauthorized and unsafe interactions with a confidential informant, including disclosing sensitive operational information.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider character evidence and his potential for rehabilitation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and the conclusion that the appellant's usefulness as a police officer had been completely annulled were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for insubordination and breach of confidence, as well as the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal.

The charges arose from an unauthorized CPIC check on a surveillance vehicle involved in a joint forces investigation, and the subsequent disclosure of that information to an undercover officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the credibility assessments and factual determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was also upheld given the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's lack of remorse, and the paramount importance of protecting the CPIC database.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for deceit and the penalty of demotion imposed for three counts of misconduct, including unauthorized access to police databases (CPIC and RMS) and deceit during a professional standards interview.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the officer deliberately lied to investigators to distance himself from an individual with a criminal record.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of demotion from First-Class to Third-Class Constable for one year, finding it consistent with the seriousness of the multiple breaches and the officer's deceit.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing several preliminary matters in a complex human rights proceeding.

The request to amend the style of cause to reflect legal name changes was granted.

The request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy was denied, as it would likely extend the cost and time of the proceeding.

The Hamilton Police Association's request to dismiss the complaints for failure to make out a prima facie case was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions regarding the request for dismissal on the basis of timeliness and ordered immediate compliance with disclosure obligations.

The appellant, a Toronto police officer, appealed a hearing officer's decision finding the respondent officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the respondent locked the appellant in an interview room while he was providing a witness statement regarding a complaint he had made.

The appellant alleged he was unlawfully detained and that the hearing officer was biased.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias and concluding that the hearing officer's findings of fact, credibility assessments, and application of the objective test for discreditable conduct were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant, a Toronto police officer, appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that found the respondent officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant alleged he was unlawfully detained when the respondent locked him in an interview room while he provided a witness statement, and that the Hearing Officer was biased because he belonged to the same police service as the respondent.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias as the appellant failed to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity and provided no evidence of actual bias.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's findings that there was no unlawful detention, as there was no compulsion or coercion, and that locking the door was a reasonable security measure.

The appellant, a police officer with 31 years of unblemished service, appealed a penalty of 40 hours forfeiture imposed by a Hearing Officer for discreditable conduct.

The officer had pled guilty to failing to report an off-duty minor motor vehicle accident.

The parties had presented a joint submission recommending a 20-hour forfeiture, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of a harsher penalty.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred by relying on information not in evidence, mischaracterizing the misconduct by referencing an abandoned Criminal Code charge, and failing to provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the joint submission.

The penalty was varied to the jointly recommended 20 hours.

Constable Batista appealed his conviction for unnecessary exercise of authority after deploying a Taser twice on a handcuffed, non-resistant protestor.

The complainant, Paul Smith, cross-appealed the penalty of a reprimand, arguing it was manifestly unfit.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed both appeals.

The Commission found no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the use of the Taser was unreasonable under the circumstances.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting that the officer's loss of acting rank and salary, combined with the reprimand, constituted a serious consequence that adequately addressed deterrence.