OCPC 2011

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for a minimum of one year, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The charges stemmed from an off-duty assault on his child and the improper retention and storage of police property and documents over a 14-year period.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer properly weighed the mitigating factors, including the officer's exemplary employment history, against the seriousness and repetitive nature of the misconduct.

The penalty was deemed reasonable and consistent with similar cases.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of 160 hours forfeiture and mandatory alcohol treatment following a guilty plea to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved off-duty belligerence and profane language towards investigating OPP officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by failing to provide a logical and intelligible analysis of the evidence regarding the appellant's alcohol consumption, ignoring evidence favourable to the appellant.

The Commission revoked the original penalty, finding it harsh and excessive, and substituted a penalty of 80 hours forfeiture while quashing the order for alcohol treatment.

The appellant filed a complaint against a police officer for conducting unlawful CPIC searches.

The police service attempted to resolve the matter informally without the appellant's consent, contrary to the Police Services Act.

At the disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer quashed the charges against the officer, citing the criminal law principle of double jeopardy because the officer had already been counselled.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the informal resolution was a legal nullity due to lack of consent, that double jeopardy does not apply to administrative employment discipline, and that the Hearing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons.

The matter was remitted for a hearing.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct for stealing gas and supplies from the detachment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer made significant errors by failing to consider substantial mitigating character evidence and the appellant's successful rehabilitation for PTSD and alcoholism.

The penalty was varied to a demotion to fourth-class constable with strict conditions for ongoing psychological monitoring.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision acquitting a police officer of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and insubordination.

The officer had arrested the appellant for allegedly breaching release conditions and conducted a strip search behind a convenience store.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made significant errors of law and fact, failed to provide adequate reasons, and ignored material evidence.

The Commission revoked the acquittals and substituted findings of guilt on both charges, concluding the arrest lacked reasonable grounds and the strip search violated police policy.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after failing to properly report a minor collision between his cruiser and a fire truck, and initially misleading his supervisor about the cause of the damage.

The hearing officer imposed a penalty of 40 hours forfeiture.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the hearing officer failed to provide sufficient reasons for the penalty and did not adequately weigh mitigating factors, including the officer's 23-year unblemished record and guilty plea.

The appeal was allowed and the penalty reduced to 20 hours forfeiture.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of immediate dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after being found guilty of multiple counts of misconduct, including neglect of duty, breach of confidence, and insubordination.

The misconduct involved a prolonged pattern of unauthorized and unsafe interactions with a confidential informant, including disclosing sensitive operational information.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider character evidence and his potential for rehabilitation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and the conclusion that the appellant's usefulness as a police officer had been completely annulled were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and neglect of duty, as well as a six-month demotion penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's decision, applying the Dunsmuir standard of review.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons regarding the use of force and the failure to provide medical assistance were insufficient and unreasonable, revoking those convictions.

However, the Commission upheld the conviction for neglect of duty regarding the failure to document the complainant's injury.

The penalty was consequently reduced to a forfeiture of three days' pay.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for deceit and the penalty of demotion imposed for three counts of misconduct, including unauthorized access to police databases (CPIC and RMS) and deceit during a professional standards interview.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the officer deliberately lied to investigators to distance himself from an individual with a criminal record.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of demotion from First-Class to Third-Class Constable for one year, finding it consistent with the seriousness of the multiple breaches and the officer's deceit.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for insubordination and breach of confidence, as well as the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal.

The charges arose from an unauthorized CPIC check on a surveillance vehicle involved in a joint forces investigation, and the subsequent disclosure of that information to an undercover officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the credibility assessments and factual determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was also upheld given the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's lack of remorse, and the paramount importance of protecting the CPIC database.

The appellant, a 25-year veteran police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal or resignation imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The disciplinary charge stemmed from an off-duty incident where the appellant, after failing a use of force re-qualification, consumed alcohol, destroyed property in his home, and violently resisted arrest by assaulting and threatening responding officers.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the evidence or the application of the relevant penalty factors, and concluded that the appellant's egregious conduct destroyed his usefulness to the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct for incivility toward a civilian town employee.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility, failed to consider his medical state, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias due to a comment about his counsel's ethnicity.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and applied the correct objective test for discreditable conduct.

The Commission also held that the single comment regarding counsel's ethnicity, while inappropriate, did not impact the substantive issues or create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission previously found the respondent police officer guilty of unlawful exercise of authority and insubordination related to an unlawful arrest and strip search.

In this penalty decision, the Commission considered the officer's employment history, prior disciplinary record, and the seriousness of the misconduct.

Accepting the joint submission of the respondents, the Commission ordered the officer to forfeit 8 days or 64 hours of pay.