OCPC 2003

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for misconduct (insubordination) for failing to attend court.

The officer had received conflicting orders to attend a medical bureau and court at overlapping times.

He attended the medical bureau and forgot to attend court due to the excitement of potentially returning to work.

The Hearing Officer accepted his evidence but found forgetfulness was not a lawful excuse.

The Commission allowed the appeal, holding that an honest mistake in these unique circumstances constituted a lawful excuse.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments he allegedly made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed witness credibility, applied the correct legal principles, and reached a conclusion supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed, arguing the disciplinary hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that the Hearing Officer should have accepted his alternate version of events.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or in the penalty of dismissal, noting the Crown had not requested a stay of the disciplinary proceedings.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest for public intoxication, and the resulting penalty of a 12-day suspension.

The appellant also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Hearing Officer subsequently accepted a position at the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

The Commission dismissed the bias claim and upheld the misconduct finding, concluding it was supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred by considering post-offence disciplinary matters.

The penalty was reduced to a 4-day suspension.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for neglect of duty, arguing that the Notice of Hearing was served outside the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent argued the appeal itself was out of time under section 70(1).

The Commission held that the appeal was timely because the officer never received written notice of the hearing officer's ruling on the limitation motion.

However, the Commission dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the six-month limitation period commenced when the designated investigator received the officer's notes and formulated the opinion that misconduct occurred, making the Notice of Hearing timely.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of neglect of duty for allegedly failing to submit a report and make notes regarding a civilian complaint.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, finding that the prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence linking the officer to the incident.

The Commission noted that the hearing officer's conclusions lacked an evidentiary foundation, as no direct evidence was introduced to prove the officer was assigned to or involved in the call.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on seven counts of misconduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct charges stemmed from his unauthorized use of the CPIC system to conduct numerous inquiries on his former common-law spouse and her new partner, as well as failing to report her breach of bail conditions and improperly using his position to obtain an occurrence report.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's prior disciplinary record and the serious nature of using CPIC for personal reasons.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct arising from his arrest of a tow truck operator following a verbal altercation at a breakdown scene.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant acted unprofessionally, failed to communicate effectively, and improperly used his power of arrest after a dispute over towing dispatch.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the Hearing Officer's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellant's conduct in executing the arrest was improper and discreditable.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments he allegedly made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed witness credibility and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The appellant, a staff sergeant with 29 years of service, appealed a disciplinary penalty imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

While off duty, the appellant drove impaired, struck a parked car, directed racial slurs at the vehicle's owner, and assaulted him.

He was convicted criminally of impaired driving and assault.

The Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of demotion to sergeant for one year, after which the appellant would be required to enter the normal promotional process to regain his rank.

The appellant argued this indeterminate demotion was illegal under section 68(1)(c) of the Police Services Act and was harsh and excessive.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the statute permits a demotion requiring an officer to compete for promotion, and that the penalty was appropriate given the highly offensive nature of the conduct.