OCPC 1999

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal of his termination from employment as a police cadet.

The Commission held that a police cadet is not a 'police officer' within the meaning of the Police Services Act and therefore has no right of appeal under Part V. Furthermore, the Commission found it had no statutory authority to extend the 30-day time limit for filing an appeal, and that even if the appellant were a probationary police officer, his termination would be governed by section 44(3) without a right of appeal under Part V. The motion was allowed and the appeal was quashed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of 15 days off.

The conviction arose from a telephone conversation in which the appellant used racially offensive language.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's credibility findings, concluding they were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, finding it was within the appropriate range for serious misconduct involving racial slurs, despite the appellant's exemplary prior record.

The appellant police officer appealed two findings of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion.

The charges arose from off-duty incidents where the appellant, frustrated by the police investigation into break-ins at his home, delivered a threatening Christmas card to a suspect and wrote a threatening message on the inside wall of his house.

The Commission admitted new evidence showing the appellant had been falsely implicated in a robbery, which prejudiced the initial hearing.

The Commission upheld the discreditable conduct finding regarding the Christmas card, noting the appellant used his position to obtain the suspect's address.

However, the Commission dismissed the charge regarding the message on the wall, finding it was a private act with no connection to the police service's reputation.

The penalty was reduced from a four-month demotion to a seven-day loss of pay.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions on two counts of neglect of duty and the resulting penalty of a reduction in rank for six months.

The convictions arose from his failure to conduct a proper investigation and failure to arrest a suspect for breach of recognizance during a domestic violence call.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the standard of proof is 'clear and convincing evidence' regardless of the penalty sought, and that the two counts did not violate the rule against multiple convictions.

The Commission upheld the penalty, noting the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's prior disciplinary record, and his failure to acknowledge responsibility.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of discreditable conduct and deceit, as well as the penalties imposed, including dismissal.

The allegations stemmed from off-duty visits to the residence of a woman he had met while on patrol, and an inaccurate statement regarding a CPIC check.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, overturning the convictions for discreditable conduct and deceit due to a lack of clear and convincing evidence and failure to prove intent to deceive.

The penalty for a neglect of duty charge, to which the officer had pled guilty, was reduced from a demotion to a loss of 16 hours' pay.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against several police officers.

The respondents raised preliminary motions arguing that the chief of police's prosecutor was not a proper party to the appeal and that the appeal was filed outside the 30-day limitation period under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that the prosecutor is a proper party to the appeal.

The Commission also found that the appeal was filed within the 30-day period, as the time began to run when the applicant received written notice of the decision, not when he was verbally informed.

The preliminary motions to dismiss were denied.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The officers had responded to a call about suspicious persons and recovered a baseball bat and pool cue, but did not immediately report these findings to dispatch, unaware that another unit was investigating a nearby assault involving a baseball bat.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the penalties, finding that the officers exercised reasonable discretion based on the limited information available to them at the time, and could not be judged with the benefit of hindsight.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for neglect of duty and deceit arising from unauthorized CPIC queries, spending excessive time on a follow-up call with a personal acquaintance, and making false notebook entries.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission admitted some fresh affidavit evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that no manifest errors were made.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and the resulting penalty of ten days' docked pay.

The officer had used excessive force against a young offender during a traffic stop and subsequent interview, including pushing the youth against a van and slapping him in the face.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the evidence clearly established the misconduct, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the penalty was appropriate given the lack of remorse and need for deterrence.

The United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the North Glengarry Police Service and replace it with a unified Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contract for the entire region.

The Commission reviewed the proposed policing arrangement to ensure it would provide adequate and effective police services.

While finding the overall complement appropriate, the Commission found the dedicated municipal policing complement unacceptably low compared to similar municipalities.

The Commission consented to the abolition subject to two conditions: the municipal complement must be increased to a minimum of 80 uniformed officers, and any outstanding disputes regarding severance and status of current members must be referred to arbitration if not resolved within 60 days.

The County of Wellington applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to abolish the municipal police services of Fergus, Harriston, and Palmerston, transitioning to an integrated Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contract.

The Commission reviewed the proposed staffing, facilities, communications, and equipment, concluding that the OPP arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services.

The Commission granted consent for the abolishment effective September 7, 1999, and ordered that any unresolved severance issues between the Board and the police associations proceed to arbitration if not settled within 45 days.

The Village of Point Edward applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish its municipal police service and enter into a contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for policing services.

The Commission reviewed the OPP proposal, which included an integrated detachment model, increased facility size, and enhanced equipment and communications.

Applying historical and geographical comparative tests, the Commission found that the proposal would provide adequate and effective police services to the community.

Consent to abolish the police service was granted, subject to the condition that the parties reach an agreement on termination and severance for existing members, or proceed to arbitration.

The Town of North Perth applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Listowel Police Service and contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for policing services.

The Commission reviewed the OPP proposal and found that it would provide adequate and effective policing for the newly restructured municipality, noting the increased staffing, enhanced capabilities, and appropriate facilities.

As no agreement had been reached regarding severance for the uniformed members of the Listowel Police Service, the Commission ordered that any unresolved severance issues be referred to arbitration.

Consent to abolish the police service was granted subject to compliance with the arbitration order.

The Guelph Police Services Board requested a hearing under section 39(5) of the Police Services Act after the City of Guelph reduced its proposed 1999 budget by $252,000.

The Board argued the funds were necessary to hire additional staff, cover overtime, and meet new provincial standards, while the City contended the approved budget was sufficient given past surpluses and under-spending.

The Commission authorized most of the disputed expenditures, including funds for court security, traffic enforcement, data entry, and Y2K compliance, but disallowed the hiring of one general duty officer and an unexplained miscellaneous expense.