OCPC 1991

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct after having sexual intercourse with a civilian in their patrol car while on duty.

They argued the matter should have been handled as a public complaint, which would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and challenged the admissibility of electronically intercepted conversations under Section 8 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding the complaint was not a public complaint, the Charter arguments failed, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severe breach of public trust.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to deceit and discreditable conduct for falsifying records regarding the discovery of cocaine during a traffic stop.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and unjust, noting a co-accused officer received a lesser penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's lack of remorse and reformation distinguished his case from the co-accused, and his conduct demonstrated unfitness to hold the office of constable.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his convictions and penalty of immediate dismissal for discreditable conduct after he assaulted a police sergeant and used abusive language at a police station.

The Commission upheld the assault conviction, finding the appellant's intoxication did not negate the general intent required.

However, the Commission struck one count of discreditable conduct as duplicitous.

On penalty, the Commission found the hearing officer failed to give appropriate weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's 19 years of service and his efforts to address his alcohol consumption.

The penalty of dismissal was set aside and replaced with a reduction in rank to Third Class Constable.

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 parties applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to reconsider and clarify a previous appeal decision that quashed a police officer's dismissal and substituted a demotion.

The parties sought clarification on the effective date of the demotion.

The Commission declined to conduct a hearing to interpret its previous decision, finding that the decision was clear and unambiguous, and that the effective date of the penalty was a question of law to be determined by the courts, though it noted its understanding that the effective date would be the date of the original penalty.

The appellant police officer was convicted of neglect of duty for leaving his assigned patrol area without permission or sufficient cause.

He appealed the conviction, arguing he had sufficient cause because he accompanied another officer to a violent domestic call outside his area.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that even if his attendance was justified, he had adequate opportunity to notify control via radio and failed to do so, which vitiated his defence of sufficient cause.

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 appealed a penalty imposed following his guilty plea to a charge of discreditable conduct (assault).

The charge was laid under the former Police Act, but the hearing occurred after the Police Services Act came into force, resulting in procedural irregularities.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission quashed the original penalty and substituted a penalty of forfeiture of 20 days leave or days off.

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 Vanier Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for a ruling that court security costs should not be included in the cost-sharing formula under its policing agreement with the Ottawa Police Services Board, and for repayment of past amounts.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction to interpret the agreement but not to order repayment.

On the merits, the Commission ruled that the broad definition of operating costs in the agreement included the newly imposed statutory costs of providing court security.