Michael Shard

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-month demotion and mandatory anger management.

The misconduct charge arose from allegations that the appellant physically assaulted his spouse on three occasions.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence, erred in assessing credibility, and lacked a sufficient evidentiary foundation for her findings.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the legal tests for credibility and standard of proof, and that her factual findings were reasonable and supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly considered relevant factors, including the seriousness of domestic violence and the appellant's employment history.

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.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charge arose after the appellant pointed his loaded service pistol at a fellow officer who had been waving a baton near his head.

The appellant argued he was in a state of non-insane automatism due to ongoing workplace harassment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably preferred expert evidence that the appellant's actions were an explosion of anger rather than dissociation.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the significant provocation from fellow officers and the appellant's strong potential for rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a two-year reduction in rank to third class constable, subject to a detailed return to work plan.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal after he pointed his loaded service pistol at a fellow officer.

The incident occurred after the fellow officer waved a baton near the appellant's head.

The appellant argued he was in a state of non-insane automatism due to ongoing workplace harassment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer's rejection of the automatism defence was supported by evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty from dismissal to a two-year reduction in rank to third class constable, finding the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the significant provocation the appellant faced from his colleagues and his strong potential for rehabilitation.

The appellant, a first class constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charge arose after the appellant pointed his loaded service pistol at a fellow officer who was waving a baton near his head.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably rejected the appellant's defence of non-insane automatism based on expert psychiatric evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty.

It found that the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the significant workplace harassment the appellant had endured, which acted as provocation, and to the appellant's strong potential for rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a reduction in rank to third class constable for two years, subject to a detailed return to work plan.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal, which arose from his use of excessive force in disciplining his infant children.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the hearing officer did not err in admitting hearsay statements from the appellant's wife or in concluding there was clear and convincing evidence of misconduct.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding that the hearing officer erred in applying precedent without establishing the requisite elements for dismissal.

Noting the appellant's successful rehabilitation efforts and the absence of any attempt to subvert justice, the Commission reduced the penalty from dismissal to a reduction in rank to Second Class Constable.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and a penalty of five days without pay.

The charge arose from allegations of sexual harassment involving off-duty physical contact with another officer over a two-and-a-half-year period.

The Commission found that the adjudicator erred in linking the off-duty activities to the workplace to conclude the environment was poisoned.

The Commission held that the private, off-duty conduct between consenting adults did not bring discredit upon the police service.

Furthermore, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that the appellant knew or ought to have known the conduct was unwelcome.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and penalty were quashed.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions and penalties for four counts of discreditable conduct.

The Commission quashed the first count regarding association with a known criminal, finding insufficient evidence that the officer knew of the individual's criminal record.

However, the Commission upheld the convictions for falsely registering a vehicle using a northern Ontario address to avoid fees, and for attempting to influence an Ohio State Trooper during a traffic stop.

The penalties of loss of pay for the upheld counts were confirmed.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a conviction of discreditable conduct arising from a property dispute with a township road crew.

The appellant had objected to the crew digging a ditch on what he believed was his property, relying on a land survey, and had tossed a worker's hard hat off his fence post.

The Commission found that the appellant acted in a civil and professional manner, doing no more than any citizen would to prevent encroachment on their property.

The Commission concluded there was insufficient evidence that his actions brought or were likely to bring discredit to the police force, allowed the appeal, and quashed the conviction.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for neglect of duty arising from his delegation of duties during an underwater search and rescue re-qualification course.

The prosecution alleged he improperly delegated his duties and failed to report that a diver had not re-qualified due to illness.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding no clear and convincing evidence that the appellant could not delegate his duties to a qualified subordinate, as authorized by Police Orders.

The Commission noted the prosecution appeared to be an unwarranted use of the disciplinary process.