OCPC 1990

The appellant, a police constable, was convicted of a disciplinary offence for refusing a lawful order to patrol outside the Morgentaler Clinic, citing his religious beliefs against abortion.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the order to keep the peace did not violate his Charter rights or constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code, as a constable's duty to preserve the peace must be performed impartially regardless of personal conscience.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, reducing it to a demotion in rank, noting the appellant's good service record and his undertaking to obey lawful orders in the future.

The appellant, a First Class Constable, appealed a decision of the Board of Commissioners of Police discharging him due to a purported mental disability.

The appellant had suffered a series of jaw injuries and experienced fear and anxiety about potential reinjury.

The Commission found that under Section 27(e) of Regulation 791, a discharge for mental disability must be supported by the evidence of two legally qualified medical practitioners.

The medical evidence presented did not support a finding of mental disability, as both doctors indicated his fear was a normal and justified reaction to his previous trauma.

The Commission quashed the discharge and ordered the appellant reinstated.

The Commission also noted that under the Human Rights Code, the employer bears the onus of establishing that the appellant's physical disability could not be accommodated without undue hardship.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of ten forfeited vacation days imposed for discreditable conduct related to operating a sporting goods store without the Commissioner's consent.

The parties presented a joint submission recommending a reduced penalty of five vacation days, citing a change in the Ontario Provincial Police Force's policy regarding secondary employment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission accepted the joint submission, allowed the appeal, and substituted a penalty of five vacation days.

The complainant alleged that the respondent police force was incompetent in its investigation of a series of rock-throwing incidents at his property.

The police force had deployed significant resources, including an OPP tracking dog, physical surveillance, surveillance cameras, and extensive interviews, accumulating over 200 hours of investigation time.

The Commission found that the police force had taken all reasonable steps to locate a suspect and that the complaint of incompetence was unfounded.

The complaint was dismissed.

The appellant police officer was convicted of multiple counts of discreditable conduct for making unwelcome sexual comments and physical advances toward female colleagues and civilians while off-duty at a motel during a temporary posting.

The Commission upheld the convictions, rejecting the appellant's explanations and his argument that the relaxed off-duty atmosphere excused his behaviour.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, finding the original sentence too harsh given the appellant's efforts at rehabilitation, and reduced his rank to Fourth Class Constable.

A police officer appealed his conviction and sentence for corrupt practice and discreditable conduct under the Police Act.

The charges arose after the officer discovered a civilian with an unregistered restricted weapon and, instead of laying charges, purchased the weapon for $50.

The officer argued that the Kienapple principle should prevent multiple convictions arising from the same facts.

The Commission found no legal nexus between the charges, as discreditable conduct relates to the reputation of the police force, while corrupt practice relates to the personal moral integrity of the officer.

The appeal against the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal was also dismissed, as the officer's actions were planned, methodical, and deliberate, amounting to obstructing justice for personal gain.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after he refused a lawful order to provide his residential address to the Force.

He argued the charge should be quashed due to a three-month delay in scheduling the appeal, that the Force failed to comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that he had a lawful excuse because his wife had previously been harassed by another officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the delay was not undue, the Force had complied with the privacy legislation, and the harassment claim was not raised at the time of the order and did not constitute a lawful excuse.

The conviction and penalty of forfeiture of two days' leave were upheld.

The appellant, a police constable, sought an extension of time to serve a Notice of Appeal regarding his dismissal from the police force following a criminal conviction for assault.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that under Section 24 of Regulation 791, the maximum period within which a Notice of Appeal may be served is 45 days, and therefore it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time.

In the alternative, the Commission found that the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit to justify an extension of time, and dismissed the application.

The appellant police officer was convicted of six counts of discreditable conduct relating to unwelcome sexual overtones and harassment of six women, both on and off duty.

He appealed the convictions and the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the hearing judge's conclusion that the conduct brought discredit upon the police force.

The Commission upheld the penalty, noting the officer's prior reprimand for similar conduct and the necessity of public trust in police integrity.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Force Adjudicator after he pleaded guilty to a disciplinary charge of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from his criminal conviction for sexual assault, for which he received a conditional discharge.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, noting that the officer had testified at his criminal trial and his evidence was rejected as unbelievable and unreasonable.

The Commission held that because a police officer's duty requires testifying in court, the destruction of his credibility meant he could no longer function as a police officer.

The Town of Mount Forest applied to the Ontario Police Commission for consent to abolish its municipal police force and enter into a policing agreement with the Ontario Provincial Police.

After holding a public hearing and considering submissions from the town council, police associations, and citizens, the Commission found that the proposed OPP policing service would adequately satisfy the community's needs.

The Commission granted consent to abolish the local force without imposing additional conditions regarding officer pensions or employment, noting that an agreement had already been reached between the local police association and the OPP.

The Town of Wallaceburg applied to the Ontario Police Commission under section 14(3) of the Police Act to resolve a budget dispute with the Board of Commissioners of Police.

The Town sought an $80,000 reduction in the police budget, proposing cuts to the marine patrol, communications staff, and overall complement.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the proposed reductions would impair the Board's ability to maintain an adequate police force in accordance with the police needs of the municipality.

The City of Brantford Police Association applied to determine the status of certain civilian employees under Section 23(2) of the Police Act, arguing they were not 'senior officers'.

The Ontario Police Commission found that the Director of Planning and Research acted in a confidential capacity and the Supervisor of Central Records acted in a supervisory capacity, making them senior officers.

For the remaining two positions, the Commission found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove they were not senior officers.

The application was dismissed.