OCPC 1995

The Palmerston Police Services Board charged Chief Moyle with misconduct 15 months after the facts first came to its attention.

Chief Moyle brought a preliminary motion to quash the charges, arguing they were not laid within the six-month limitation period under subsection 60(12) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found it had jurisdiction to hear the motion and held that the Board failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The charges were quashed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty imposed by a Hearing Officer and confirmed by the Police Services Board for neglect of duty and deceit.

The officer had pled guilty and a joint submission recommended a penalty of 5 days' loss of pay.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission and imposed a penalty of 18 days' loss of pay, referencing two withdrawn charges in his reasons.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to provide clear reasons for departing from the joint submission and improperly considered extraneous information from the withdrawn charges.

The Commission substituted the jointly recommended penalty.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for Discreditable Conduct and the penalty of an eight-hour loss of time.

The conviction stemmed from an incident where the Appellant allegedly called an assault victim a 'bitch' outside a courtroom.

The Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to provide clear and convincing evidence, citing conflicting witness testimony and another individual's admission to making the comment.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably assessed witness credibility and that the penalty was not excessive given the circumstances.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for neglect of duty arising from his delegation of duties during an underwater search and rescue re-qualification course.

The prosecution alleged he improperly delegated his duties and failed to report that a diver had not re-qualified due to illness.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding no clear and convincing evidence that the appellant could not delegate his duties to a qualified subordinate, as authorized by Police Orders.

The Commission noted the prosecution appeared to be an unwarranted use of the disciplinary process.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of resignation or dismissal.

Pending the appeal, the appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh documentary and viva voce evidence regarding his character and work performance.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to have the appellant's salary held in trust pending the appeal.

The Commission applied the Palmer test and admitted one performance evaluation report but denied the other fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced at the original hearing.

The Commission dismissed the respondent's motion, holding that under the Police Services Act, an officer who has not been outright dismissed is entitled to continue receiving their salary pending the final disposition of their appeal.

The Appellant, an OPP Sergeant, appealed a disciplinary conviction for Damage to Clothing or Equipment after rear-ending a civilian vehicle with his police cruiser in winter conditions.

He argued the Adjudicator erred by rejecting expert evidence regarding potential mechanical failure and by ignoring the investigating officer's recommendation against disciplinary action.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to adjust his driving to the poor visibility and road conditions, and that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the conviction.

The appellant, a Staff Sergeant with the OPP, appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct for utilizing an OPP vehicle for personal use to visit a woman in the White Dog community.

The Commission found that while two of the alleged visits were incidental to legitimate police business, the third visit involved driving a police vehicle for strictly personal reasons.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the charge was proven and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty of 30 hours' forfeited pay for wilfully or carelessly destroying a police service document.

The officer had shredded a memo addressed to him, believing it was his personal copy, though the respondent argued it was the official copy for his performance file.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the officer acted reasonably in assuming the unmarked memo was his to dispose of, and set aside the conviction and penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct and a reprimand for failing to disclose a witness statement in a Crown Brief concerning a drinking and driving accident.

The appellant argued that he followed mandatory procedures which directed that only essential witnesses be included, and that his supervising officers approved the brief.

The provided text concludes after summarizing the appellant's submissions.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of forfeiture of four days off for careless damage to equipment.

The officer had driven his cruiser onto a wet grass field while pursuing youths, skidded, and struck a light pole.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the officer failed to maintain control of the vehicle and exhibited careless behaviour.

The Commission also rejected the argument that the charge violated principles of progressive discipline, noting the officer's prior driving-related conduct reports.

The Smiths Falls Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to terminate a fourth-class constable to reduce the size of the police force.

The Board argued the officer was hired as a temporary replacement and was no longer needed.

The Smiths Falls Police Association opposed the termination, arguing the force was already understaffed and the community suffered from a high crime rate and excessive officer overtime.

The Commission found the officer was a permanent employee and denied consent for the termination, concluding the Board failed to demonstrate that the reduction would not impair the provision of adequate and effective police services in the municipality.