OCPC 1993

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

While off duty, the appellant was stopped and found to be driving with an expired validation tag, an expired driver's licence, and an expired insurance certificate.

The appellant argued that he should be treated like any other citizen for regulatory offences and that discreditable conduct should be reserved for more serious issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the public expects police officers to adhere to the laws they enforce, and driving with multiple expired documents fell below that standard.

The appellant police sergeant appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and a penalty of four days' lost pay.

The charge arose from his failure to place himself on duty and take charge of a search and rescue operation for three missing boaters while he was the on-call supervisor.

The Commission found that the Canadian Coast Guard had jurisdiction over the search and that the appellant's physical presence would not have altered the tragic outcome.

The Commission concluded that the appellant did not neglect his duty and quashed the conviction and penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and penalty of forfeiture of two vacation days for a breach of confidence.

The officer had queried the Canadian Police Information Centre and warned his brother, a lawyer, that a client was thought to be violent and dangerous.

The Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, rejecting arguments regarding non-disclosure of unedited documents and the sufficiency of evidence.

However, finding the breach to be technical and understandable, the Commission reduced the penalty to a reprimand.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct and neglect of duty arising from a sexual relationship with a female member of the public.

He argued that the charges were duplicitous, lacked sufficient evidence, were vague as to time, and that the presiding officer's reasons lacked particulars.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charges were distinct, the evidence supported the likelihood of bringing discredit to the police force, the appellant knew the case he had to meet, and the presiding officer's credibility findings were reasonable.

The Commission also upheld the penalties imposed, including a reduction in rank.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty and the imposed penalty of five days' pay.

The appellant argued that the hearing officer erred in weighing evidence and assessing credibility, and that the penalty was excessive compared to an initial informal offer of admonishment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against the conviction, noting that it could not review credibility findings without a transcript of the hearing.

The Commission also dismissed the penalty appeal, holding that the disparity between an informal offer and a trial penalty is a risk of proceeding to a hearing, and found the five-day penalty reasonable.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was involved in a driving altercation where he assaulted a civilian, causing extensive facial damage.

He was convicted of assault causing bodily harm under the Criminal Code.

Following a disciplinary hearing under the Police Services Act, he was found guilty of discreditable conduct and dismissed from the police service.

He appealed the penalty to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing it was disproportionate and disparate compared to other cases.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the severity of the violence and the officer's lack of credibility—highlighted by his reliance on a fabricated timeline regarding his father's accident to claim emotional stress—justified the penalty of dismissal.

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 pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after using excessive corporal punishment on his son, who suffered from severe behavioural issues.

He was subsequently charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered to resign or be dismissed.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission considered the officer's 14-year unblemished record, his sincere efforts to manage a difficult child, and the exceptional circumstances of the case.

The Commission concluded that dismissal was too severe and reduced the penalty to a reduction in rank for 12 months.

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.