Michael Temple

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to a discipline offence after receiving a discharge for a criminal conviction under s. 206(1)(e) of the Criminal Code for participating in a pyramid scheme.

The hearing officer imposed a penalty of a reduction in rank for one year, which amounted to a financial loss of approximately $4,000.

The officer appealed the penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the penalty too severe given the officer's unblemished record and the nature of the offence, which was characterized as a prohibited form of gambling.

The penalty was reduced to a loss of five days' pay and a reprimand.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of demotion to the salary level of a Probationary Constable after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for touching a female officer's breast while off duty and intoxicated.

The appellant argued the penalty was too severe given his positive performance appraisals and the circumstances.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the off-duty status and intoxication were not mitigating factors, and that the penalty imposed was the least acceptable penalty for the conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed his disciplinary conviction and penalty for deceit, arising from a false statement he made regarding the escape of an arrested person.

The appellant argued that the offence of deceit requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of proof is 'clear and convincing evidence' and that the maximum penalty for a minor offence was appropriate given the facts.

The appellant, a police constable appealing a conviction for deceit, brought a preliminary motion requesting that a Commission member disqualify himself on the ground of perceived bias.

The motion was based on a newspaper article written by the member criticizing the Special Investigations Unit, and a letter from the Police Association of Ontario expressing a lack of confidence in the member.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would not conclude that the member had a bias that would impede his ability to decide the appeal objectively and impartially.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed his conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

He was convicted of failing to diligently inquire into a complaint from a female constable that she had been indecently assaulted by a male constable.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding ample evidence to support the Hearing Officer's credibility findings.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty of a two-day pay forfeiture, holding that the penalty imposed after a formal hearing is not limited by the lesser penalty proposed during the informal discipline process.

The appellant, an OPP Corporal, appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of twenty days' leave.

The conviction arose from his taking possession of a seized shotgun from another officer, allegedly knowing or ought to have known it was seized in a criminal investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found sufficient evidence to support the trial officer's conclusions on both conviction and penalty, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

He had failed to promptly respond to a dispatch regarding speeding trucks, instead attempting to reassign the duty to another officer in an unauthorized manner.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the purported transfer of duties did not constitute a lawful excuse and that the appellant failed to promptly and diligently perform his assigned duty.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of the loss of three rest days was upheld.