Leo A. Kinahan

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant arrested a civilian for public intoxication under the Liquor Licence Act and used force during the arrest.

The Hearing Officer found the civilian and his companion credible and concluded the arrest was unlawful and the force unnecessary.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions on credibility and the evidence were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which had dismissed his appeal of a hearing officer's interlocutory ruling on the basis that the notice of appeal was out of time.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's ruling was interlocutory and could not be appealed until a decision on the merits was made.

Since the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the decision on the merits, it was timely.

The matter was remitted to the Commission to determine the appeal on the merits.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a forfeiture of five days off.

The conviction stemmed from an incident where the appellant became verbally abusive and engaged in a physical confrontation with a security guard after a store refused to accept a $100 bill.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the penalty was within the appropriate range.

The appeal against both conviction and penalty was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct arising from an off-duty incident at a retail store.

The officer had become verbally abusive and engaged in a physical confrontation with a security guard after being told the store would not accept a $100 bill.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the penalty of a forfeiture of five days off was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct and penalized with a forfeiture of five days off after a confrontation at a retail store.

The officer became verbally abusive and engaged in a physical altercation with security after the store refused to accept a 100-dollar bill.

On appeal, the Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence despite minor inconsistencies in witness testimony.

The penalty was also upheld as appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for neglect of duty, arguing that the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent argued the appeal itself was out of time under section 70(1).

The Commission found that the appeal was filed in a timely manner because the appellant never received written notice of the hearing officer's ruling on the limitation period motion.

However, the Commission also found that the Notice of Hearing was served within the six-month limitation period, as the period commenced when the designated complaints investigator received the appellant's notes and formulated the opinion that misconduct had occurred.

The conviction for neglect of duty was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for neglect of duty, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings were barred by the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent argued the appeal itself was out of time under section 70(1).

The Commission held that the Notice of Hearing was served within the six-month limitation period, which commenced when the investigator received the officer's notes and formulated the opinion that misconduct occurred.

The Commission also held that the appeal was timely because the officer never received proper written notice of the hearing officer's decision on the limitation motion.

The conviction for neglect of duty was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for neglect of duty, arguing that the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent argued the appeal itself was out of time under section 70(1).

The Commission held that the appeal was timely because the officer never received written notice of the hearing officer's ruling on the limitation motion.

However, the Commission dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the six-month limitation period commenced when the designated investigator received the officer's notes and formulated the opinion that misconduct occurred, making the Notice of Hearing timely.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing his application to stay disciplinary proceedings for discreditable conduct.

The appellant argued the proceedings were commenced outside the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

Following the dismissal of the stay application, the appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to a reduced charge.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding it was brought outside the 30-day appeal period under s. 70(1) of the Act, which began running from the date of the stay decision, not the final disposition.

Furthermore, the negotiated plea constituted a waiver of the right to appeal.

In obiter, the Commission noted that the six-month limitation period begins when the Chief's designates possess sufficient factual information, not when the final report is received.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing his application to stay disciplinary proceedings for discreditable conduct.

The appellant argued the proceedings were commenced outside the six-month time limit under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

Following the hearing officer's decision, the appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to a reduced charge.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding it was brought outside the 30-day appeal period under s. 70(1) of the Act, which began running from the date of the hearing officer's decision, not the ultimate disposition.

Furthermore, the negotiated plea constituted a waiver of the right to appeal.

In obiter, the Commission noted that the six-month limitation period begins when the Chief's designates possess sufficient factual information, not when the final report is received.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing his application to stay disciplinary proceedings for discreditable conduct.

The appellant argued the proceedings were commenced outside the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

Following the hearing officer's decision, the appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to a reduced charge.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding it was brought outside the 30-day appeal period under s. 70(1) of the Act, which began running from the date of the hearing officer's decision, not the ultimate disposition.

Furthermore, the negotiated plea constituted a waiver of the right to appeal.

In obiter, the Commission noted that had the appeal been timely, it would have found the hearing officer erred in law regarding the commencement of the limitation period.

The York Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the basis that his notice of appeal was filed outside the 30-day statutory limitation period under s. 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission found that the appeal period commenced when the sentencing decision was served, not the earlier finding of guilt.

However, because the notice of appeal was served by facsimile on the final day of the limitation period, it was deemed received the following day under s. 77(3) of the Act.

The Commission held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit and granted the motion to dismiss the appeal.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory limitation period under subsection 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant's notice of appeal was served via facsimile on the final day of the limitation period, which under subsection 77(3) deemed it received the following day, making it one day late.

The Commission held that the 30-day appeal period commences after the sentencing decision is served, not the finding of guilt.

However, because the notice was deemed served one day late, and the Commission lacks inherent jurisdiction to extend statutory time limits, the motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and a penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours.

He had refused to answer questions regarding an investigation into the death of an infant, arguing that he was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and had a right to remain silent under the Charter.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the order to answer questions was lawful and that the Charter did not provide a lawful excuse to disobey the order, as any compelled statements could not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for insubordination and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on the appeal.

The appellant sought to introduce affidavits and statements to prove he was under criminal investigation at the time he refused to answer questions, arguing this engaged his Charter rights.

Applying the Palmer test, the Commission found the proposed evidence was not available by due diligence at trial, was relevant to the Charter issue, was credible, and could reasonably have affected the result.

The motion was granted, and the fresh evidence was admitted subject to the respondent's right to cross-examine the deponents.

The requesting state appealed an order discharging fugitives at an extradition hearing on heroin conspiracy charges.

The Court of Appeal held that the extradition judge misapplied s. 18(1)(b) of the Extradition Act by focusing on proof of the foreign offences and territorial situs rather than asking whether the conduct underlying the foreign charges, wherever it occurred, would if committed in Canada establish a prima facie case of any Canadian extradition offence.

Applying the proper conduct-based double criminality analysis, the court found sufficient evidence of conspiracy to traffic in heroin and trafficking in heroin to justify committal.

The fugitives' separate application alleging a 25-month appellate delay under s. 7 of the Charter was dismissed because they took no steps to expedite the appeal and showed no real prejudice affecting fairness.