OCPC 1997

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and a penalty of five days without pay.

The charge arose from allegations of sexual harassment involving off-duty physical contact with another officer over a two-and-a-half-year period.

The Commission found that the adjudicator erred in linking the off-duty activities to the workplace to conclude the environment was poisoned.

The Commission held that the private, off-duty conduct between consenting adults did not bring discredit upon the police service.

Furthermore, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that the appellant knew or ought to have known the conduct was unwelcome.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and penalty were quashed.

The appellant, a junior police officer, was dismissed after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct for off-duty shoplifting of items worth $6.10.

At the time of the incident, she was suffering from major depression.

She appealed the penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that while the conduct was discreditable, the penalty of dismissal was excessive given her unblemished record, her acceptance of responsibility, and the psychiatric evidence explaining her behaviour.

The penalty was varied to a forfeiture of 20 days off.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding her guilty of misconduct for leaving her service firearm unattended in an open locker, for which she was ordered dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence that the locker was left unsecured.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty.

Relying on uncontradicted medical evidence that the appellant suffered from depression and stress-related cognitive impairments, the Commission found that the employer failed in its duty to accommodate her treatable mental disability.

The penalty of dismissal was reduced to a demotion to 4th Class Constable for a twelve-month period to allow for rehabilitation and supported supervision.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for deceit and insubordination, and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of two days off.

The deceit charge arose from false notebook entries concealing a visit to a chiropractor while on duty.

The insubordination charge arose from the officer's failure to submit a written report regarding equipment found in his locker while he was suspended.

The Commission upheld both convictions, finding the notebook entries were inaccurate and misleading, and that a suspended officer remains obligated to comply with lawful orders from superiors.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions and penalties for four counts of discreditable conduct.

The Commission quashed the first count regarding association with a known criminal, finding insufficient evidence that the officer knew of the individual's criminal record.

However, the Commission upheld the convictions for falsely registering a vehicle using a northern Ontario address to avoid fees, and for attempting to influence an Ohio State Trooper during a traffic stop.

The penalties of loss of pay for the upheld counts were confirmed.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was found guilty of discreditable conduct for leaving a store with unpaid merchandise and was dismissed from the police service.

He appealed the conviction and penalty.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding no reason to interfere with the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and intent.

However, the Commission found the penalty of dismissal excessive, as the Hearing Officer failed to consider mitigating factors such as the appellant's guilty plea, unblemished record, and likelihood of rehabilitation.

The penalty was reduced to a reduction in rank for one year.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct based on three criminal convictions for assault.

The assaults occurred prior to his employment as a police officer.

The appellant argued the hearing officer relied on evidence not presented at the hearing and applied personal bias regarding spousal abuse.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer properly considered objective factors and that the appellant's numerous criminal convictions severely impaired his credibility and ability to carry out the duties of a police officer, justifying dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for two counts of neglect of duty (sleeping on duty and failing to respond to a break-in) and one count of deceit, as well as the penalties imposed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the Hearing Officer's reasons were inadequate, the evidence on record met the clear and convincing standard to support the convictions.

The Commission upheld the convictions but varied the penalties, reducing the indefinite demotion to a fixed six-month period and reducing the forfeiture of pay for deceit from 40 hours to 16 hours.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct arising from an off-duty assault on a contractor he believed had stolen his rings.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the penalty and found that the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to significant mitigating factors, including the appellant's unblemished ten-year service record, his acceptance of responsibility, his pursuit of counselling, and the victim's forgiveness.

The Commission varied the penalty from dismissal to a one-year demotion to fourth class constable.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had engaged in off-duty secondary employment acting as an escort for a member of the public without seeking permission or disclosing the potential conflict of interest.

The Commission found that while the Hearing Officer's reasons were deficient and an off-the-record discussion with the prosecutor was imprudent, there was clear and convincing evidence of discreditable conduct based on the undisputed facts.

However, the Commission found the penalty of dismissal to be excessive, as this was the officer's first disciplinary infraction chronologically, and reduced the penalty to a demotion to Third Class Constable for one year.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to Constable Second Class for a minimum of one year, imposed after findings of guilt on two counts of neglect of duty and one count of deceit.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and excessive, citing mitigating factors including residual pain from a previous on-duty motor vehicle accident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's repeated disregard for professional standards warranted disciplinary action and the penalty imposed was within the acceptable range.

The Town of Goderich applied for consent to abolish its municipal police service in order to contract with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission previously withheld consent due to concerns about the lack of a visible local police office.

The Town subsequently provided a detailed plan, budget, and lease for a centrally located storefront community policing office.

Satisfied that the new accommodation plan met the community's needs, the Commission granted consent to abolish the municipal police service.

The Towns of Hanover and Walkerton applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for approval to amalgamate their respective police services and to terminate certain civilian dispatch staff to reduce the size of the new service.

The Commission reviewed the proposed amalgamation agreement, which included the creation of a joint board, consolidation of dispatch services, and retention of all uniformed officers.

Finding that the amalgamation would provide adequate and effective policing and that the requirements for severance agreements with the affected civilian staff had been met, the Commission approved the amalgamation and consented to the terminations.

The Town of Goderich applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish its municipal police force and contract policing services from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposal to determine if it would provide adequate and effective police services.

While the Commission found the proposed staffing, supervision, equipment, and dispatching arrangements to be satisfactory, it concluded that the proposal lacked a concrete plan for a local community policing facility.

As a visible local presence was deemed essential, the Commission denied the request for abolition but remained seized of the matter for 90 days to allow the Town to present a detailed facility plan.

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

The Commission reviewed the proposed amalgamation agreement, which included provisions for a joint police services board, transfer of members, assets, liabilities, and budgeting.

The Commission found that the proposed amalgamation would provide adequate and effective policing to both communities, noting benefits such as 24-hour policing for Thornbury and a modern police facility.

The Commission approved the amalgamation effective November 1, 1997, subject to the requirement that appointments to the new board comply with the Police Services Act.

The Town of Collingwood applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish its municipal police force and enter into a contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposal for an integrated OPP detachment and found it would provide adequate and effective policing.

As severance agreements were signed for terminated employees and outstanding matters referred to arbitration, the Commission consented to the abolition of the municipal force.

The applicant police association applied under section 116 of the Police Services Act to determine whether seven individuals in five positions (Licencing Enforcement Officer, Licencing Clerk, Board Clerk, Confidential Board Secretary, and Board Manager) were members of the police force.

The Commission held that the board's power to contract under section 30(1) allows it to directly employ individuals for clerical, secretarial, and administrative functions relating to its governance duties.

Therefore, the Board Clerk and Confidential Secretary are not members of the police force.

However, by-law enforcement functions must be performed by members of the police force under the operational direction of the chief of police.

Thus, the Licencing Enforcement Officers and Licencing Clerk must be members of the police force, and the Board Manager must also be a member unless the by-law enforcement responsibilities are divested.