OCPC 2008

The appellant, a Toronto police officer, appealed a hearing officer's decision finding the respondent officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the respondent locked the appellant in an interview room while he was providing a witness statement regarding a complaint he had made.

The appellant alleged he was unlawfully detained and that the hearing officer was biased.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias and concluding that the hearing officer's findings of fact, credibility assessments, and application of the objective test for discreditable conduct were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant, a police officer with a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse, appealed a hearing officer's decision ordering him to resign or be dismissed after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from his criminal conviction for possessing marijuana while suspended for a previous incident of smoking marijuana at work.

The appellant argued the hearing officer failed to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate his disability and his subsequent rehabilitation.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer appropriately weighed the employer's accommodation efforts against the appellant's repeated criminal misconduct, history of deception, and the potential damage to the police service's reputation.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of misconduct arising from an unprovoked assault on a handcuffed prisoner accompanied by discriminatory comments.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in principle by disregarding positive character evidence and failing to properly apply the usefulness test.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the relevant factors, including mitigating ones, and reasonably concluded that the egregious nature of the misconduct and the bias demonstrated rendered the officer no longer useful to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a two-year demotion imposed for discreditable conduct after he drove a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol and was involved in a single-vehicle collision.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by treating the officer's delay in reporting the collision as an aggravating factor, as this allegation had been withdrawn on consent.

Given the mitigating factors, including a guilty plea and positive performance evaluations, the Commission allowed the appeal in part and reduced the penalty to a one-year demotion.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties submitted a consent motion requesting an order revoking the hearing officer's decisions, citing a failure by the complainant to disclose relevant evidence.

The Commission noted that counsel failed to provide written argument, factums, or evidence to support the motion, and failed to address the Commission's jurisdiction to grant such relief on consent.

The Commission held that it cannot simply rubber-stamp a joint submission and directed counsel to file the required materials by a specified date, failing which the motion would be dismissed. (An amending order later corrected the name of the respondent's counsel in the original decision).

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and the resulting penalty of a seven-day forfeiture.

The officer had conducted unauthorized CPIC inquiries on his wife and her vehicle for personal reasons, specifically to determine if his ex-wife had improperly searched for their new address.

The Commission upheld the finding of guilt, confirming that CPIC must be used exclusively for police business and that the officer's personal motivations did not justify the searches.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to a three-day forfeiture, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in law by considering prior informal discipline that should have been expunged from the officer's record under section 64(16) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant, a Toronto police officer, appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that found the respondent officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant alleged he was unlawfully detained when the respondent locked him in an interview room while he provided a witness statement, and that the Hearing Officer was biased because he belonged to the same police service as the respondent.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias as the appellant failed to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity and provided no evidence of actual bias.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's findings that there was no unlawful detention, as there was no compulsion or coercion, and that locking the door was a reasonable security measure.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted criminally for shoplifting and uttering threats while off duty.

The Hearing Officer ordered his dismissal.

On appeal, the Commission found the Hearing Officer committed a manifest error in principle by accepting the diagnosis of work-related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) but failing to consider it as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase.

The uncontradicted medical evidence showed the appellant had recovered and his risk of reoffending was extremely low.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a one-year demotion to third-class constable with mandatory psychological monitoring.

The appellant, a police officer with 31 years of unblemished service, appealed a penalty of 40 hours forfeiture imposed by a Hearing Officer for discreditable conduct.

The officer had pled guilty to failing to report an off-duty minor motor vehicle accident.

The parties had presented a joint submission recommending a 20-hour forfeiture, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of a harsher penalty.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred by relying on information not in evidence, mischaracterizing the misconduct by referencing an abandoned Criminal Code charge, and failing to provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the joint submission.

The penalty was varied to the jointly recommended 20 hours.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of a loss of five days' pay imposed after he was found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to submit an Arrest Report prior to a fingerprint and court date.

The appellant argued the penalty was excessive and that the hearing officer erred by considering his entire disciplinary history rather than just a prior informal reprimand for the same misconduct.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that an officer's entire disciplinary history is a relevant consideration for progressive discipline and that the hearing officer applied the correct dispositional principles without manifest error.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose from his investigation of a stolen vehicle and its occupants, where he failed to properly search, inventory, and determine ownership of property found in the vehicle, and improperly released property to a suspect.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence and that the appellant, as the lead investigator, was responsible for ensuring a proper investigation was conducted.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of resignation or dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from his heavy marijuana use, which resulted in a criminal conviction for possession of a controlled substance.

The Appellant argued that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider his substance abuse disability, his rehabilitation efforts, and the Service's duty to accommodate.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the Service's accommodation efforts against the Appellant's repeated criminal misconduct, history of deception, and the potential damage to the Service's reputation.

The penalty was upheld as reasonable and just.