OCPC 2005

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 12-hour forfeiture with conditions.

The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant discharged his firearm at the tires of a fleeing suspect vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer fired for the sole purpose of stopping the vehicle, contrary to O. Reg. 546/99.

However, the Commission varied the penalty by removing the condition that the penalty be satisfied within one month and reported to the Professional Standards Bureau, leaving the timing to the unit commander.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The misconduct involved the misappropriation of over $4,000 in public funds through the improper use of service credit cards for personal motorcycle repairs, submitting false receipts for vehicle repairs, and failing to account for cash requisitioned for an informant.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the protracted and premeditated nature of the misconduct, the breach of public trust, and the absence of significant mitigating factors.

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

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted touching directed at a female civilian co-worker.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent gender sensitivity counseling.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's decision to deny an adjournment request, finding the appellant had ample time to prepare.

Finally, the Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the seriousness of the workplace sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for domestic assault and indecent exposure, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failure to comply with the service requirements under subsection 70(1) of the Police Services Act and section 8.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant failed to serve the affected parties with the Notice of Appeal within the 30-day limitation period.

The appellant did not file responding materials or attend the motion hearing to request an extension of time.

The Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant successfully appealed a hearing officer's decision, resulting in findings of misconduct against two police officers for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

This decision determines the appropriate penalty.

The Commission considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the officers' employment histories, and the element of provocation by the appellant.

Constable Parker, who initiated the arrest, was suspended without pay for 32 hours.

Constable Koscinski, who assisted, was ordered to forfeit 16 hours off.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing allegations of misconduct against two police officers.

The officers had arrested the appellant for causing a disturbance in a courtroom while a Justice of the Peace was presiding, subsequently using force to remove him.

The Commission revoked the hearing officer's decision, finding that the officers' general authority to arrest for a disturbance was superseded by the presiding Justice of the Peace's authority to control the courtroom and deal with contempt.

The Commission concluded the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary, rendering the force used unjustified, and found the officers guilty of misconduct.

The appellant, a police officer with 16 years of service, appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer following his guilty plea to two counts of discreditable conduct related to cocaine possession and use.

The misconduct occurred while the appellant was working as an undercover drug operative and suffering from an addiction.

At the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor and defence presented a joint submission proposing a 'last chance agreement' with strict conditions, including demotion and drug testing, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the appellant's addiction as a handicap requiring accommodation, relied on speculative conclusions unsupported by evidence, and imposed an unduly harsh penalty.

The Commission varied the penalty to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting 20-day suspension without pay.

The conviction arose from an incident where the officer stopped a female acquaintance on an isolated road while on duty and made inappropriate sexual comments.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt, concluding that the credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, reducing the suspension to 15 days and ordering the officer to complete a sexual harassment prevention program, noting mitigating factors such as the officer's prior good record and recognition of the gravity of the misconduct.

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

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and touching directed at a civilian employee.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it failed the Palmer test.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's decision to deny an adjournment, noting the appellant's history of delays and failure to justify the request.

Finally, the Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, emphasizing the seriousness of the sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, developed a cocaine addiction and was criminally convicted of simple possession.

He pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

At the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor and defence presented a joint submission proposing a 'last chance' agreement with strict conditions, including demotion and drug testing.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission and ordered the appellant to resign or be dismissed.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred by relying on speculative conclusions and failing to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate the appellant's addiction.

The Commission varied the penalty to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting 20-day suspension without pay.

The conviction stemmed from an incident where the appellant stopped a female acquaintance on an isolated road while on duty and made inappropriate sexual comments.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to a 15-day suspension and ordered the appellant to complete sexual harassment prevention training, noting his prior good record and recognition of the gravity of the misconduct.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The misconduct involved the misappropriation of over $4,000 in public funds through false expense claims and forged receipts for personal vehicle repairs.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The Commission also dismissed the appeal against the penalty, concluding that the deliberate and protracted nature of the misconduct, combined with a lack of remorse and restitution, justified dismissal.

The appellant was arrested by two police officers for causing a disturbance in a courtroom while a Justice of the Peace was presiding over his wife's trial.

The officers dragged the appellant from the courtroom and used force to restrain him.

The appellant filed a public complaint, and a disciplinary hearing initially cleared the officers.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the hearing officer's decision, finding that the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary because the presiding Justice of the Peace's authority to control the courtroom and deal with contempt superseded the officers' general authority to arrest for a disturbance.

Consequently, the force used was unjustified, and the officers were found guilty of misconduct.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision that found two police officers not guilty of misconduct for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

The Commission previously revoked the hearing officer's findings and substituted determinations of guilt.

In this penalty decision, the Commission considered the officers' employment histories, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the appellant's provocative behavior.

The Commission imposed a penalty of a 32-hour suspension without pay for the primary officer and a forfeiture of 16 hours off for the junior officer who assisted.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to serve the notice of appeal on the affected parties within the 30-day limitation period required by the Police Services Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant served the Commission within the time limit but served the respondents by mail outside the 30-day window.

The Commission found that while the Act itself only explicitly requires service on the Commission within 30 days, the Commission's Rules of Practice mandate service on the affected parties within the same timeframe.

As the appellant failed to comply with the Rules and did not request an extension or attend the motion, the Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and the penalty imposed for discharging his firearm at the tires of a fleeing vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer's actions violated the prohibition against firing at a moving vehicle for the sole purpose of stopping it, as he was not in immediate danger when he fired.

The Commission varied the penalty by removing the condition that the forfeiture of twelve hours be completed within one month and reported to the Professional Standards Bureau, leaving the timing to the unit commander.

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

The misconduct involved inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted touching directed at a female civilian co-worker.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by denying an adjournment request and that the penalty was excessive.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the adjournment denial was reasonable given the history of delays and lack of medical evidence.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the seriousness of the workplace sexual harassment, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for criminal offences, and his lack of rehabilitation potential.

A motion to introduce new evidence of post-termination counseling was also denied.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and the associated penalty of a 12-hour forfeiture.

The conviction arose from an incident where the officer discharged his firearm at the rear tire of a fleeing stolen vehicle during a high-speed pursuit.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the officer fired for the sole purpose of stopping the vehicle, contrary to section 8 of O. Reg. 546/99, and not out of an immediate fear for his life, as the vehicle was passing him at the time.

However, the Commission varied the penalty by deleting the Hearing Officer's conditions regarding the specific timing and reporting of the 12-hour forfeiture, finding those matters best left to the officer's unit commander.

The Durham Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to serve the notice of appeal on the affected parties within the 30-day limitation period required by the Police Services Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The appellant did not file responding materials or attend the motion hearing.

The Commission found that while the Act itself only explicitly requires service on the Commission within 30 days, the Commission's Rules mandate service on all affected parties within the same timeframe.

Because the appellant failed to comply with the Rules and did not request an extension, the motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision clearing two police officers of misconduct.

The Commission previously revoked that decision and found the officers guilty of making an unlawful and unnecessary arrest and using unnecessary force against the appellant in a courtroom.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the seriousness of the misconduct against mitigating factors, including the officers' employment records and the appellant's provocative behaviour.

The Commission ordered the senior officer to be suspended without pay for four days (32 hours) and the junior officer to forfeit two days (16 hours) off.