OCPC 2006

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 18 days forfeiture imposed after he pled guilty to insubordination for conducting unauthorized CPIC queries for personal reasons.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer ignored a joint submission on penalty and imposed an excessive forfeiture.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding there was no joint submission as the parties had proposed different penalties.

The Commission also held that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the relevant sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the officer's prior disciplinary record, and the need for deterrence, and that the penalty was within the acceptable range.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to second-class constable for six months, imposed after he was found guilty of discreditable conduct for attempting to intimidate a citizen into pleading guilty to a traffic charge.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh and failed to apply the principle of progressive discipline.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's employment history, and the principle of progressive discipline, and that the penalty was within the reasonable range of options.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The officer had been dispatched to assist park wardens with evicting underage campers and administered a breathalyzer test to the appellant.

The appellant alleged arbitrary detention and Charter breaches.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the Hearing Officer to accept the officer's evidence that the breathalyzer test was voluntary and to conclude that misconduct was not established on clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to second-class constable for six months following a guilty plea to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved driving an unregistered and uninsured personal vehicle and failing to report an accident.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer did not err in principle and properly considered the officer's prior disciplinary record and the principle of progressive discipline.

The penalty was deemed reasonable and within the appropriate range.

The appellant filed a public complaint against a police officer, which led to a disciplinary hearing where the officer was found not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant appealed the decision to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

Before the appeal could be heard, the officer retired from the police force.

The Commission held a motion to determine its jurisdiction and concluded that under the Police Services Act, it has no jurisdiction to conduct a disciplinary appeal regarding an individual who is no longer a police officer.

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

The charges arose from criminal proceedings involving an assault on a fellow officer with whom he had a domestic relationship, and two subsequent breaches of a recognizance.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant penalty factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for threatening, and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The Commission concluded that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable and within the Hearing Officer's discretion.

The appellant, an OPP Sergeant, appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The allegations stemmed from an incident where the appellant, while 'on call', left his region to return borrowed equipment and was involved in a motor vehicle collision in an OPP vehicle.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty for failing to notify his supervisor before leaving the region and failing to report the collision in a timely manner.

On appeal, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer failed to address conflicting evidence regarding the duty to notify and credibility issues.

Furthermore, the Commission found that the appellant had reported the collision at the first reasonable opportunity, satisfying the policy requirements.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was revoked.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct and was found guilty of one count of corrupt practice.

The misconduct involved importing khat while returning from Kenya, attempting to use his police status to avoid customs scrutiny, and lying to officials.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer properly balanced the relevant factors, including the serious nature of the misconduct, the damage to the police service's reputation, and the lack of rehabilitation potential, and upheld the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The allegations stemmed from an incident where the appellant and his friends were evicted from a provincial park for underage drinking and noise.

The officer, called to assist, placed the appellant in his cruiser and administered a breathalyzer test.

The appellant alleged arbitrary detention and Charter breaches.

The Hearing Officer accepted the officer's evidence that the test was voluntary and for the sole purpose of ensuring safe driving upon eviction.

The Commission applied a standard of reasonableness simpliciter, deferred to the Hearing Officer's credibility findings, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing a charge of misconduct against the respondent police officer for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest.

The incident occurred when the officer attended the appellant's residence to investigate a complaint and a physical altercation ensued at the door.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law by concluding that the implied licence to knock could not be withdrawn by clearly understood demeanour.

Since the officer acknowledged knowing he was not welcome from first contact, he became a trespasser by remaining on the property, rendering the subsequent arrest unlawful.

The appeal was allowed and a finding of guilt for misconduct was substituted.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision that he lacked jurisdiction to proceed with a disciplinary charge of discreditable conduct against a police officer.

The Commission had previously directed the Chief of Police to initiate a hearing within 60 days, but the charge was served 256 days later.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was a final decision subject to appeal.

The Commission granted leave to appeal and held that the 60-day direction was not a mandatory condition that invalidated the proceedings if breached.

The Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision, found no abuse of process due to delay, and ordered the Chief of Police to proceed with the charge.

The appellant, a senior police officer, appealed a penalty of forfeiture of three days imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct for misusing police resources.

While on duty, the appellant used police resources to pursue a personal grievance against members of another police service.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer considered the appropriate mitigating and aggravating factors and that the penalty was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to ten counts of misconduct, including discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and corrupt practice.

The misconduct involved the unauthorized removal of pornographic photographs from a citizen's home, failing to account for police batons, and engaging in an inappropriate, undocumented relationship with a 17-year-old female while on duty.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the officer's deliberate course of conduct, lack of appreciation for established procedures, and prior disciplinary record demonstrated he was ungovernable and beyond rehabilitation.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of dismissal was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 18 days forfeiture imposed following a guilty plea to one count of insubordination for conducting numerous unauthorized CPIC queries for personal reasons.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by exceeding a joint submission on penalty and failing to properly weigh dispositional factors.

The Commission found there was no joint submission, as the parties proposed different penalties.

The Commission upheld the penalty, finding the Hearing Officer properly considered the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's disciplinary history, deterrence, and relevant precedents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant arrested a civilian for public intoxication under the Liquor Licence Act and used force during the arrest.

The Hearing Officer found the civilian and his companion credible and concluded the arrest was unlawful and the force unnecessary.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's conclusions on credibility and the evidence were not void of evidentiary foundation.