OCPC 1994

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a disciplinary conviction for neglect of duty and the resulting penalty of forfeiting two days or twenty hours of time off.

The charge arose from his response to a report of missing boaters who subsequently drowned.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the appellant failed to apply full diligence to his duties, notably by booking off his shift without following up on the search or completing an occurrence report.

However, considering the appellant's inexperience and unblemished record, the Commission reduced the penalty to a reprimand.

The appellant police officer was dismissed after being convicted of criminal charges related to off-duty domestic assaults.

He appealed the disciplinary decision to the Commission.

Before the disciplinary appeal was heard, the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed his criminal convictions and ordered a new trial, but the Crown elected not to proceed.

The parties reached an agreement to reinstate the appellant, which the Commission accepted.

The Commission noted that disciplinary proceedings need not be stayed pending a criminal appeal, and that off-duty criminal conduct is not inherently less serious than on-duty conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of discreditable conduct and penalties of resignation or dismissal arising from two off-duty incidents involving alcohol and drugs.

The Commission reduced the penalty for the first charge (impaired driving) to a forfeiture of twenty days off, noting the Force's principle that alcoholism is a treatable disease.

On the second charge (involvement with crack cocaine), the Commission upheld the finding of guilt based on the officer's presence and participation in a drug scene, but found no clear evidence that he actually used the drug.

The penalty for the second charge was reduced to a demotion to Fourth Class Constable for one year, subject to strict conditions including participation in Alcoholics Anonymous.

The Chief of Police was charged with two disciplinary offences under the Police Services Act.

The first charge, alleging he allowed unauthorized persons in a police vehicle, was quashed for failing to disclose an offence and lacking sufficient particulars.

The second charge, alleging neglect of duty for failing to provide backup during an emergency, was dismissed after a hearing.

The Commission found the Chief was engaged in an assigned duty leading a parade, was not requested by dispatch to assist, and did not contravene standard police procedures.

The appellant police officer was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80mg and subsequently found guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act, resulting in a penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay.

The officer appealed the disciplinary penalty, seeking an adjournment pending his criminal appeal and a reduction of the penalty to three days' pay.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the request for an adjournment, finding that the employer had the right to proceed with discipline once a conviction was registered.

The Commission also upheld the five-day pay forfeiture, emphasizing the need for exemplary penalties for police officers who engage in drinking and driving.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and a penalty of 24 hours forfeiture of time off.

The charges arose from a four-day delay in reporting a superior officer's misconduct regarding a lowered breathalyzer reading, and a failure to ensure seized liquor was properly recorded.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the four-day delay in reporting the superior's actions was not unreasonable given the circumstances.

However, the Commission upheld the finding of neglect of duty regarding the failure to properly record the seized liquor, as the appellant's words led subordinate officers to dispose of it.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the penalty was reduced to a forfeiture of 12 hours time off.

Two police officers appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of forfeiting two days off.

The officers had obtained a judge's order to transport a prisoner to police headquarters but instead took him to a restaurant to meet his wife, an undercover participant, to build rapport with the informant.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officers breached a court order, although the deviation was minor and understandable in the context of intelligence gathering.

The Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, quashing the forfeiture of days off and substituting a reprimand.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct following an altercation at a bar where he restrained a bouncer who was attempting to break up a fight involving another officer.

The appellant appealed the conviction and the penalty of a two-day pay forfeiture.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the adjudicator's acceptance of the bouncer's evidence was reasonable.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to a one-day pay forfeiture, noting the appellant's clear disciplinary record and his lesser culpability compared to the other officer involved.

The Towns of Port Elgin and Southampton applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for approval to amalgamate their respective police services.

Following a comprehensive review process by a Steering Committee, the municipalities proposed a joint service with a shared budget, a single Chief of Police, and a combined Police Services Board.

The Commission found the proposal well-founded and supported by the community, though it noted that the Act does not authorize the creation of an interim board with decision-making authority.

The Commission approved the amalgamation effective January 4, 1995.

The Ottawa Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under section 39(4) of the Police Services Act to resolve a dispute with the City of Ottawa regarding the 1994 police budget.

The dispute centered on whether a 1993 budget surplus should be applied to Social Contract targets or used to cover retirement payouts.

The City brought a preliminary motion challenging the Commission's jurisdiction.

The Commission granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that its jurisdiction under section 39(4) is limited to determining the adequacy of policing resources and estimates, not resolving contractual or funding source disputes.

The Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under s. 39(4) of the Police Services Act to resolve a $50,000 budget shortfall.

The Board argued that previous budget cuts left no room for further reductions, citing increased costs for vehicle replacement and insurance premiums.

The Regional Municipality opposed the application, pointing to a high incidence of tax arrears and the need to be sensitive to property taxpayers' ability to pay.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the Board could operate within the budget approved by the Municipality, and suggested the Board review its vehicle replacement allocation.