OCPC 2001

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and a penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours.

He had refused to answer questions regarding an investigation into the death of an infant, arguing that he was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and had a right to remain silent under the Charter.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the order to answer questions was lawful and that the Charter did not provide a lawful excuse to disobey the order, as any compelled statements could not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings.

The Township of Terrace Bay applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Terrace Bay Police Service, intending to contract policing services from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposed OPP policing model, which involved integrating municipal resources with the Nipigon OPP Detachment.

The Commission found that the proposed staffing levels, supervision, and equipment were adequate and effective.

However, the Commission imposed conditions requiring facility upgrades, including cell renovations and backup power, and mandated monitoring of response times during periods when officers are on call.

The Commission consented to the abolishment of the municipal police service, directing that any unresolved severance issues for existing members proceed to arbitration.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalties imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct, as well as the withdrawal of other disciplinary charges.

The Commission held a preliminary hearing to determine the appellant's standing as a public complainant and its jurisdiction over withdrawn charges.

The Commission found that the appellant's statement to the OPP during a criminal investigation did not constitute a public complaint under Part V of the Police Services Act.

The appellant only had standing to appeal the penalty for one count arising from a later written complaint.

Furthermore, the Commission ruled it had no statutory authority to hear appeals regarding disciplinary charges that were withdrawn by the prosecutor, as no decision had been rendered on those charges.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from a criminal conviction for uttering death threats against his wife and mother-in-law, which he communicated to his young children.

This was his second disciplinary conviction relating to domestic violence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the damage to the police service's reputation, and that the penalty was within the appropriate range.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of 15 days off.

The charge arose from allegations that he made offensive, sexist comments about women while supervising a probationary female officer on a paid duty assignment.

The appellant argued that the hearing officer erred by relying on the uncorroborated testimony of the probationary officer and failing to properly assess credibility.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's credibility determinations were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting the appellant's leadership role, his recent disciplinary history, and the serious nature of making demeaning remarks while in uniform.

The appellant, a detective sergeant with 26 years of service, appealed the disciplinary penalties imposed after being found guilty of two counts of discreditable conduct for submitting false expense claims to an external law enforcement network.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a forfeiture of 20 days' leave for the first count and a six-month reduction in rank to sergeant for the second count.

On appeal, the appellant argued the penalties were excessive and violated the totality principle.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the two infractions were distinct and separated by time, justifying cumulative penalties.

The Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the mitigating factors and that the penalties were consistent with prior cases involving misappropriation by police officers.

The appellant brought an application under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act seeking leave to appeal decisions arising from disciplinary proceedings against a police constable.

The parties agreed that two preliminary matters needed to be determined before the leave to appeal application could proceed.

The York Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the basis that his notice of appeal was filed outside the 30-day statutory limitation period under s. 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission found that the appeal period commenced when the sentencing decision was served, not the earlier finding of guilt.

However, because the notice of appeal was served by facsimile on the final day of the limitation period, it was deemed received the following day under s. 77(3) of the Act.

The Commission held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit and granted the motion to dismiss the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for insubordination and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal, arising from her failure to investigate an altercation involving off-duty officers at a bar and her subsequent conduct during the investigation.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding that the order to answer questions orally was lawful and that the finding of deceit was supported by evidence of her actual knowledge of the events.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the dismissal to a demotion to second class constable for one year, citing her unblemished record and the principle of progressive discipline.

The Peel Regional Police Service brought a motion to quash an appeal by Constable Cate for want of jurisdiction.

Constable Cate had been found guilty of insubordination and deceit at a disciplinary hearing regarding missing police notebooks.

Before sentencing, the missing notebooks were discovered.

The Hearing Officer stayed the insubordination charge and declared a mistrial on the deceit charge.

Constable Cate appealed the deceit conviction.

The Service argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the hearing was not completed.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer had no statutory authority to declare a mistrial, meaning the conviction stood.

Given the Hearing Officer's refusal to proceed to sentencing, the hearing was practically concluded, giving the Commission jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The motion to quash was denied.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory limitation period under subsection 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant's notice of appeal was served via facsimile on the final day of the limitation period, which under subsection 77(3) deemed it received the following day, making it one day late.

The Commission held that the 30-day appeal period commences after the sentencing decision is served, not the finding of guilt.

However, because the notice was deemed served one day late, and the Commission lacks inherent jurisdiction to extend statutory time limits, the motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The Appellant, a police constable, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty after failing to process a speeding ticket he had issued.

He argued that the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility and that the disciplinary proceedings were an abuse of process motivated by his other employment issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the circumstances, while questionable, did not meet the high threshold required to stay the proceedings for abuse of process.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of reduction in rank from first-class to fourth-class constable for one year, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct stemming from a criminal conviction for uttering a death threat.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to treat the guilty plea as a mitigating factor and by treating the officer's defence strategy at his criminal trial as an aggravating factor.

The Commission also found the penalty was harsh and excessive given the officer's unblemished employment record and the principle of rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied to a reduction in rank to second-class constable for one year.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of corrupt practice and a penalty of four days' lost pay.

The allegation was that while off-duty, he and another officer used a police badge to jump the line at a restaurant.

The Commission found that the sole witness against the appellant was unreliable, having been drinking and unable to clearly identify the officers or the badge.

Furthermore, the officers had VIP cards for the restaurant and knew the owners.

The Commission concluded there was no clear and convincing evidence that the appellant improperly used his position for private advantage.

The conviction was set aside.

The Town of Prescott and the Prescott Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Prescott Police Service and transition to an integrated policing arrangement with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission found that the proposed arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services to the community.

However, the Commission refused to consent to the abolition at this time because there was no agreement on severance pay for uniformed members and unresolved disputes regarding conditional offers of employment, particularly the OPP's refusal to hire one specific officer.

The Commission set out conditions under which it would reconsider its decision, including submitting the employment dispute to binding arbitration.

The Town of Deseronto 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).

The Commission reviewed the proposed integrated policing arrangement, staffing levels, and facilities.

The Commission found that the proposal would provide adequate and effective police services, provided that an additional full-time officer is added to the municipal complement, a direct emergency telephone is installed at the local office, firm details of the new detachment facility are provided, and severance issues are resolved.

Consent for abolition was granted subject to these conditions.