Lynda 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 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.

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.