Lynda A. Bordeleau

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of immediate dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to four counts of misconduct, including neglect of duty, deceit, and two counts of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved engaging in sexual activity with members of the public while on duty and in uniform, as well as leaving a scheduled training seminar to meet a woman and subsequently falsifying duty reports.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly considered the relevant factors including the officer's potential for rehabilitation, and imposed a penalty consistent with similar infractions.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of discreditable conduct.

The charges arose from criminal proceedings involving an assault on a fellow officer with whom he had a domestic relationship, and two subsequent breaches of a recognizance.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant penalty factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for threatening, and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The Commission concluded that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable and within the Hearing Officer's discretion.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services refusing to consent to the abolition of the municipal police force unless the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) agreed to binding arbitration regarding the hiring of a specific officer.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Commission's jurisdiction under section 40(3) of the Police Services Act is limited to ordering arbitration between a police board and a member regarding severance pay.

The Commission had no statutory authority to order the OPP to submit to arbitration regarding an officer's suitability for employment.

The condition was set aside and the Commission was directed to consent to the termination.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on four counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charges stemmed from inappropriate comments and touching of a sexual nature involving four women, including members of the public and an undercover officer.

The Commission set aside one conviction involving a brief physical contact with a civilian volunteer, finding it did not amount to discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission upheld the remaining three convictions, finding the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the appellant's lack of judgment, failure to accept responsibility, poor employment record, and the compelling psychiatric evidence indicating no realistic possibility of rehabilitation.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on four counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charges arose from inappropriate comments and touching of a sexual nature involving four women, including members of the public and an undercover officer.

The Commission set aside one conviction involving a civilian volunteer, finding the brief physical contact did not amount to discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission upheld the remaining three convictions, finding the hearing officer's credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's lack of judgment, failure to accept responsibility, poor employment record, and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on four counts of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charges arose from inappropriate comments and touching of a sexual nature involving four women, including members of the public and an undercover officer.

The Commission set aside one conviction involving a brief physical contact with a civilian volunteer, finding it did not amount to discreditable conduct.

However, the Commission upheld the remaining three convictions, finding the hearing officer's credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's lack of judgment, failure to accept responsibility, and poor rehabilitative prospects.

The Town of Prescott and the Prescott Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Prescott Police Service and transition to an integrated policing arrangement with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission found that the proposed arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services to the community.

However, the Commission refused to consent to the abolition at this time because there was no agreement on severance pay for uniformed members and unresolved disputes regarding conditional offers of employment, particularly the OPP's refusal to hire one specific officer.

The Commission set out conditions under which it would reconsider its decision, including submitting the employment dispute to binding arbitration.

The Appellant, a police constable, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty after failing to process a speeding ticket he had issued.

He argued that the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility and that the disciplinary proceedings were an abuse of process motivated by his other employment issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the circumstances, while questionable, did not meet the high threshold required to stay the proceedings for abuse of process.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of reduction in rank from first-class to fourth-class constable for one year, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct stemming from a criminal conviction for uttering a death threat.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to treat the guilty plea as a mitigating factor and by treating the officer's defence strategy at his criminal trial as an aggravating factor.

The Commission also found the penalty was harsh and excessive given the officer's unblemished employment record and the principle of rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied to a reduction in rank to second-class constable for one year.

The Renfrew Police Services Board and the Town of Renfrew applied for consent to abolish the Renfrew Police Service and integrate policing with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission reviewed the proposed staffing, facilities, and equipment to determine if the new arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services.

Finding the proposal satisfactory subject to certain facility upgrades and conditions, the Commission granted consent for the abolition and directed that any outstanding severance issues proceed to arbitration.

The United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the North Glengarry Police Service and replace it with a unified Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contract for the entire region.

The Commission reviewed the proposed policing arrangement to ensure it would provide adequate and effective police services.

While finding the overall complement appropriate, the Commission found the dedicated municipal policing complement unacceptably low compared to similar municipalities.

The Commission consented to the abolition subject to two conditions: the municipal complement must be increased to a minimum of 80 uniformed officers, and any outstanding disputes regarding severance and status of current members must be referred to arbitration if not resolved within 60 days.