OCPC 2009

The applicant police officer brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to comply with the 30-day time limit under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant filed his notice of appeal over 60 days after receiving the hearing officer's decision staying the disciplinary proceedings.

The Commission held that the 30-day statutory time limit is mandatory and cannot be extended under the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Three police officers appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty and discreditable conduct arising from their entry into an apartment without a Feeney endorsement or valid consent.

The officers argued the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to admit fresh evidence suggesting the public complainant had set them up, and by misinterpreting police service policies regarding consent.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer had no statutory authority to reopen the hearing to admit fresh evidence after rendering a finding of guilt.

The Commission also held that the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the person who permitted entry was not an 'occupant' capable of giving lawful consent was reasonable.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after being found guilty of neglect of duty and deceit.

The officer had feigned and exaggerated injuries from an on-duty motorcycle accident to evade work and collect WSIB benefits, which was exposed by surveillance video showing him engaging in strenuous physical activities.

The appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh character evidence on appeal, which the Commission dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

On the main appeal, the Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Williams sentencing factors.

The Commission agreed that the officer's repeated deceit and breach of trust constituted serious misconduct akin to theft of time, irreparably damaging his credibility and the reputation of the police service, justifying the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty and unlawful exercise of authority, as well as the penalty of a one-year demotion.

The charges arose from an incident where the appellant allegedly kicked and slapped a handcuffed suspect and failed to submit a use of force report or note the injuries.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and findings of fact were not void of evidentiary foundation.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting the serious nature of the misconduct and the appellant's supervisory role.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and a penalty of a 3-day suspension for neglect of duty.

The charge arose after the officer allegedly told a subpoenaed witness in a careless driving trial that he did not need to stay, resulting in the charge being dismissed.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence and erred in assessing witness credibility.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and not void of evidentiary foundation.

The penalty was also upheld as appropriate.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a disciplinary penalty on the basis that the notice of appeal was filed 11 days after the 30-day statutory deadline.

The appellant did not oppose the motion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that section 70(1) of the Police Services Act imposes a strict 30-day time limit and that the 1997 amendments to the Act removed the Commission's discretion to extend the time for filing appeals.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant, a member of the public, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police constable not guilty of misconduct for an allegedly unlawful or unnecessary arrest.

The appellant had been stopped for an expired license plate and was subsequently arrested for "about to assault" after exiting his vehicle.

The Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and findings of fact.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the arrest was lawful and necessary was reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence, given the officer's perception of threat cues.

The appeal was dismissed.

Constable Pigeau appealed a finding of guilt for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and the resulting penalty of a loss of 16 hours off and directed training.

The misconduct arose from an incident where the officer made physical contact with a pedestrian he suspected of public intoxication, leading to an altercation and an unnecessary arrest.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upheld the finding of misconduct, applying a reasonableness standard of review and finding that the officer lacked legal justification for the physical contact.

However, the Commission found the penalty to be harsh and excessive, varying it to a reprimand and a requirement to attend refresher training on powers of arrest.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

The officer had been found guilty of failing to ensure a subpoenaed witness remained at court to testify in a careless driving prosecution, resulting in the charge being dismissed.

On appeal, the officer argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended the evidence and erred in assessing the credibility of the witness over the conflicting testimony of a court officer and the Crown Prosecutor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable and not void of evidentiary foundation.

The penalty of a 3-day suspension without pay was also upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to third-class constable for six months, which was imposed after she pled guilty to discreditable conduct stemming from an off-duty criminal conviction for causing a disturbance.

At the disciplinary hearing, the parties had presented a joint submission for a lesser penalty of demotion to second-class constable.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission without providing notice or reasons.

On appeal, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer violated principles of fairness by failing to give notice or an opportunity to make submissions before departing from the joint submission.

The appeal was allowed on consent, the original penalty was revoked, and the jointly proposed penalty was substituted.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion after he was arrested and convicted of impaired driving in Ohio while off-duty.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by relying on his no-contest plea in Ohio, admitting breathalyzer evidence that did not meet Canadian standards, and failing to stay the proceedings due to the destruction of audio and video tapes by Ohio authorities.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's evidentiary rulings or application of Canadian law to the foreign conduct.

The penalty of demotion from First-Class to Third-Class Constable for two years was upheld as reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct and the need for general deterrence.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision finding a police officer not guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority under the Police Services Act.

The officer had arrested a 17-year-old student without a warrant based on information from a confidential informant about a drug transaction.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the Storrey test for warrantless arrests and the Debot test for confidential informants.

The Commission held that the officer had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, and the hearing officer's decision was not void of evidentiary foundation.

The appellant appealed a decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of neglect of duty.

The respondent had seized the appellant's motorcycle without a warrant and failed to file a report with a Justice of the Peace as required by section 489.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the respondent had a lawful excuse for the failure due to the lack of clear policy from the police service regarding off-premises seizures and the general practice in Ontario at the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding and penalty but failed to serve the complainant, who was a party to the original proceedings, with the Notice of Appeal or related materials.

The Commission held that the complainant is a party to the appeal and must be served.

To protect the complainant's rights without unduly prejudicing the appellant for counsel's oversight, the Commission ordered the appellant and respondent police service to serve the complainant within 21 days and adjourned the appeal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of seven days' pay.

The charges arose after the appellant was quoted in a newspaper article discussing ongoing disciplinary charges against him and making derogatory comments about the police service.

He subsequently refused to comply with five orders (four written, one verbal) to attend an investigative interview, acting on the advice of his legal counsel who argued the notices lacked sufficient detail.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the notices complied with the Police Services Act and constituted lawful orders.

The Commission held that reliance on legal advice does not provide a lawful excuse for a police officer to disobey a lawful order, and upheld the penalty as appropriate.