OCPC 2000

The Township of Red Rock applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish its municipal police service and contract policing to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the OPP's proposal, which involved integrating the existing municipal resources with the Nipigon OPP Detachment.

The Commission found that the proposal would provide adequate and effective police services, noting the acceptable police-to-population ratio and the benefits of shared resources.

Consent for the abolition was granted, subject to conditions including the installation of a direct emergency telephone line at the former police office and the referral of any unresolved severance matters to arbitration.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct (unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority) arising from an incident where he entered a private residence without a warrant and used force against the homeowner during a missing person investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the officer had no legal authority to enter the main residence after permission was revoked, and that there were no exigent circumstances justifying the entry or the use of force.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings on credibility and the application of the law.

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

The respondents brought a preliminary motion arguing that the applicant failed to serve them with proper notice of the appeal within the 30-day period required by the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The Commission found that the applicant's attempts to serve the officers by faxing the Chief of Police and leaving copies with a student at police headquarters did not constitute proper service.

As the applicant had sufficient information to effect proper service but failed to do so, the preliminary motion was granted and the application for leave to appeal was denied.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was found guilty of theft under $5,000 after stealing money from a purse in a bar washroom.

Following a disciplinary hearing, he was ordered to resign or be dismissed.

He appealed the penalty to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his treatment for alcohol and gambling issues.

The Commission admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the theft constituted serious discreditable conduct and that there were insufficient mitigating factors to warrant altering the penalty of dismissal.

The appellants, two police officers, appealed a disciplinary penalty of a nine-month demotion in rank for discreditable conduct.

The officers had engaged in a scheme of sending unwanted mail-order items and subscriptions to the homes of three superior officers.

The Commission found that while the misconduct was serious and not merely a practical joke, the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the officers' unblemished service records, positive performance evaluations, and genuine remorse.

The Commission varied the penalty to a four-month demotion in rank.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police appealed a disciplinary sanction imposed on a constable by a delegated Hearing Officer.

The respondent constable brought a preliminary motion arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Commissioner is not a 'complainant' under section 70 of the Police Services Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that interpreting the Commissioner as a complainant would lead to absurdities within the statutory scheme.

The motion to strike the appeal was granted.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of 15 days' forfeiture of pay for discreditable conduct.

The officer had consumed alcohol while on duty, booked off duty, continued drinking, and then drove an unmarked police cruiser with unauthorized passengers, resulting in a collision and a failed roadside screening test.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty, finding that while the officer had an exemplary record, the penalty was within the acceptable range given the serious nature of the misconduct and the need for general deterrence regarding drinking and driving.

Two off-duty police officers appealed findings of neglect of duty for failing to report a motor vehicle collision involving their police vehicle and a civilian vehicle.

The officers argued there was no clear evidence of an accident, the hearing was procedurally unfair, the charges were improperly laid, and the reporting order was unclear.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments were supported by evidence, the procedural limitations did not deny natural justice, the Chief of Police had ultimate statutory authority to lay charges, and the reporting order was clear.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of uttering a death threat against a fellow officer during an altercation at a hockey arena.

He pled guilty to discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and was penalized with a reduction in rank to second-class constable for six months.

The appellant appealed the penalty, arguing it was excessive and failed to account for his excellent service record and the stress of his marital breakdown.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, the need for deterrence, and the principles of progressive discipline, noting a prior recent disciplinary incident.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed three findings of insubordination for refusing to shave his beard in violation of a police services board by-law and a standing order of the Chief of Police.

The appellant argued the policy was unreasonable and therefore not a lawful order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the board had the statutory authority to establish policies regarding personal appearance, making the order lawful.

The Commission distinguished between labour relations matters and police discipline, concluding that the appellant's refusal to obey the lawful order constituted insubordination.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for insubordination and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on the appeal.

The appellant sought to introduce affidavits and statements to prove he was under criminal investigation at the time he refused to answer questions, arguing this engaged his Charter rights.

Applying the Palmer test, the Commission found the proposed evidence was not available by due diligence at trial, was relevant to the Charter issue, was credible, and could reasonably have affected the result.

The motion was granted, and the fresh evidence was admitted subject to the respondent's right to cross-examine the deponents.

The Renfrew Police Services Board and the Town of Renfrew applied for consent to abolish the Renfrew Police Service and integrate policing with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission reviewed the proposed staffing, facilities, and equipment to determine if the new arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services.

Finding the proposal satisfactory subject to certain facility upgrades and conditions, the Commission granted consent for the abolition and directed that any outstanding severance issues proceed to arbitration.

The Town of Tillsonburg and the Tillsonburg Police Services Board applied for consent to abolish the Tillsonburg Police Service to enter into an integrated contract policing arrangement with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposal to determine if it would provide adequate and effective police services and if members were treated fairly regarding severance.

The Commission found the proposed officer-to-citizen ratio significantly lower than neighboring communities and conditioned its consent on adding 7 front-line officers, maintaining civilian support staff for policing duties, completing facility renovations, and directing unresolved severance issues to arbitration.

The County of Brant and the Brant County Police Services Board applied for consent to abolish the Brant County Police Service and replace it with Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contract policing, following municipal amalgamation.

The Commission reviewed the proposed staffing, facilities, deployment, and transition plans, comparing them to historical levels and similar municipalities.

Finding that the proposed integrated service would provide adequate and effective policing and that all existing members were fairly accommodated, the Commission approved the disbandment subject to conditions regarding facility renovations and civilian staff dedication.

The Town of Amherstburg applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Amherstburg Police Service and the Anderdon Township Police Service to create a single municipal police service for the newly amalgamated Town of Amherstburg.

The Commission reviewed the proposal to ensure it provided adequate and effective police services under the Police Services Act.

Finding that the new arrangement would improve police-to-population ratios, provide 24-hour coverage to all areas, and enhance facilities and equipment, the Commission granted consent to the abolition.

The Town of Tecumseh and the Tecumseh Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the St. Clair Beach Police Service and contract policing to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission reviewed the proposed staffing, deployment, facilities, and transition plans.

Finding the proposed officer-to-population ratio lower than comparable municipalities, the Commission approved the abolition subject to conditions, including the addition of three front-line officers and the completion of a new police facility.

The Peel Regional Police Association applied under section 116 of the Police Services Act to determine whether a fitness coordinator was a 'member' of the police service (an employee) or an independent contractor.

The Commission applied the Algonquin Tavern criteria to assess her employment status.

The Commission found that the coordinator operated her own business, had other clients, hired her own staff, and was not subject to the day-to-day control of the police service.

Consequently, the Commission concluded she was a self-employed independent contractor, not an employee.