OCPC 2012

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty arising from a suspect apprehension pursuit conducted in an unmarked police vehicle.

The Hearing Officer found that the Appellant breached police procedures but concluded the breach was not wilful, yet still constituted misconduct.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in determining the breach was not wilful.

Given the Appellant's training and the absolute prohibition against using unmarked vehicles in pursuits, the Commission concluded the breach was deliberate and intentional, thereby satisfying the requirement of wilfulness for neglect of duty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct and a penalty of demotion arising from an allegation that he referred to his police baton using a racial slur.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to apply the proper legal test for credibility equally to both the appellant and the complainant.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's credibility findings unreasonable as they ignored objective evidence, such as swipe card records, that contradicted the complainant's version of events.

The finding of misconduct was vacated and a finding of not guilty was substituted.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after she pled guilty to two counts of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct stemmed from two off-duty incidents of impaired driving for which she was criminally convicted.

The appellant argued that her misconduct was driven by her alcohol addiction and anxiety disorder, which were now in sustained remission, and sought reinstatement with a demotion.

The Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the repeated and serious nature of the misconduct, combined with her prior disciplinary record, outweighed the mitigating factors of her rehabilitation efforts.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Kawartha Lakes Police Service brought a motion to dismiss Constable Randy Johnson's appeal for failing to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory period under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant argued he did not receive written notice of the penalty decision until he received a letter from the Chief on February 15, 2012.

The Commission found that the appellant received written notice on January 6, 2012, when the Hearing Officer emailed the decision to his counsel on consent.

As the notice of appeal was filed late and the Commission has no statutory power to extend the time period, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to five charges of misconduct, including insubordination and discreditable conduct, arising from over 150 unauthorized CPIC and PIP searches and inappropriate use of police equipment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review to the Hearing Officer's decision.

The Commission found no manifest errors, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the evidence, assessed credibility, and applied appropriate sentencing principles.

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

The appellant, a detective constable, appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination after leaving his loaded service firearm unsecured on his desk.

He argued that he did not receive proper notice of the chief's complaint under the Police Services Act and sought to introduce new evidence regarding a past misconduct conviction of the main witness.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission denied the motion to introduce new evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, concluding that the hearing officer reasonably found that proper notice was given during the informal resolution process and that the evidence clearly supported the finding that the appellant failed to secure his firearm.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of Neglect of Duty and the resulting penalty of a 40-hour forfeiture.

The misconduct charge arose from the appellant's failure to properly investigate a domestic violence complaint reported by a member of the public.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in assessing credibility and in concluding that there was sufficient information to warrant further investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer applied the correct legal principles in assessing credibility and that his findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, noting that the Hearing Officer appropriately weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors, including the seriousness of failing to properly respond to a domestic violence complaint.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of resignation or dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to multiple counts of discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and insubordination.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in fact and failed to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate his generalized anxiety disorder and alcohol dependency.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision reasonable.

The Commission noted the appellant had previously been reinstated under a 'last chance' agreement for similar misconduct and failed to comply with its conditions, concluding the employer had fulfilled its duty to accommodate.

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

The misconduct involved forcing entry into a neighbour's home while intoxicated to confront his son, and subsequently actively resisting arrest by fellow officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's decision reasonable given the appellant's history of progressive discipline for alcohol-related misconduct, failure to rehabilitate despite multiple opportunities, and the serious damage to the reputation of the police service.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of guilt for insubordination after failing to comply with an order from the Chief of Police to provide information regarding his secondary employment in a home construction company.

The appellant argued that the order was unlawful because it requested personal and corporate tax records.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Chief's order was lawful as it was issued for the public purpose of investigating compliance with the Police Services Act.

The Commission held that the appellant had a duty to respond to the lawful portions of the order and that relying on legal advice did not provide a lawful excuse for his failure to comply.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-month demotion and mandatory anger management.

The misconduct charge arose from allegations that the appellant physically assaulted his spouse on three occasions.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence, erred in assessing credibility, and lacked a sufficient evidentiary foundation for her findings.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the legal tests for credibility and standard of proof, and that her factual findings were reasonable and supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The Commission also upheld the penalty, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly considered relevant factors, including the seriousness of domestic violence and the appellant's employment history.

The Appellant police officer appealed to the Commission regarding a transfer and a request for restitution of 34 days' pay, which he alleged were disciplinary actions imposed without complying with Part V of the Police Services Act.

The Respondent argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the actions were administrative and the appeal was out of time.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction, as the actions arose inferentially from the disciplinary scheme.

The Commission dismissed the appeal as premature, struck down the Record of Informal Discipline, and directed the Commissioner to hold a hearing under section 76(9) of the Act.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of misconduct and demoted.

His association attempted to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory period but mistakenly couriered it to the wrong address.

The appellant brought a motion, on consent of the respondent police service, for an order that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the late service.

The Commission held that the 30-day time limit in s. 87(1) of the Police Services Act is substantive and cannot be waived.

However, the Commission found that the method of service is procedural.

Exercising its power under its Rules of Practice, the Commission waived the rule regarding the correct address and deemed the notice validly served within the appeal period.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty.

After the appeal hearing but before the Commission rendered its decision, the appellant retired from the police service.

The Commission determined that under the Police Services Act, its jurisdiction over disciplinary matters ends once an individual ceases to be a police officer.

Consequently, the Commission found it lacked jurisdiction to continue the appeal and issue a decision on the merits.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against four police officers for failing to make an approved screening device (ASD) demand following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Hearing Officer had ruled that the driver's admission of alcohol consumption was a legally compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act and could not be used to form reasonable suspicion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found this ruling unreasonable, as there was no evidence the driver subjectively believed he was legally compelled to report the accident.

The Commission revoked the dismissal for the two first-responding officers and remitted the matter for continuation, but confirmed the dismissal for the two later-arriving officers who could not have made a demand 'forthwith'.

The appellant, a public complainant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for alleged unauthorized database searches.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the appellant's initial e-mail complaint was unsigned, failing to meet the mandatory requirements of s. 57(2) of the Police Services Act, and that the officer had already been informally disciplined for the conduct.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by considering expunged disciplinary records and raised new grounds including issue estoppel.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded the complaint was invalid for lack of a signature and properly considered oral testimony regarding the prior discipline.

The Commission also held it lacked jurisdiction to hear new grounds of appeal filed beyond the statutory time limit.

The appellant, a police officer with 19 years of service, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to seven counts of insubordination and one count of neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved over 100 unauthorized CPIC checks, inappropriate relationships with women known to have criminal records, and negligent administration of police duties.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider mitigating factors, including his personal circumstances and depression.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and correctly concluded that the appellant's protracted pattern of serious misconduct warranted dismissal.