OCPC 2013

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion seeking the return of allegedly privileged handwritten notes that were disclosed to the respondent, a member of a Police Services Board, in advance of a disciplinary hearing.

The Commission argued the disclosure was inadvertent.

The panel found that while it had jurisdiction to order the return of improperly disclosed documents under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the notes in question were not protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Furthermore, even if they were privileged, the disclosure was not inadvertent because the Commission admitted it did not have a practice of vetting documents for privilege prior to disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant, a public complainant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding two respondent police officers not guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The appellant alleged prosecutorial misconduct, Hearing Officer bias, and errors in findings of fact and credibility.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, noting the appellant waived his right to allege bias by not raising it during the hearing, and concluding the Hearing Officer's factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision imposing a demotion in rank for assisting another officer in cheating on three separate promotional examinations using electronic communication equipment.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended the evidence regarding her motivation, failed to properly weigh case law, and imposed a harsh and excessive penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, transparent, and fell within the acceptable range of outcomes for the serious misconduct committed.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a penalty of 80 hours forfeiture imposed after being found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to properly maintain his police notebooks over a 29-month period.

The appellant argued the hearing officer was biased, misconstrued facts, and imposed a harsh and excessive penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and appropriately considered all relevant sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the public interest.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to rule on the appellant's motion for a stay of proceedings based on abuse of process.

The Commission determined that the deliberate merging of the internal disciplinary investigation and the criminal investigation, which used regulatory powers to compel evidence for the criminal probe, constituted an egregious abuse of process and a violation of the appellant's Charter rights.

The Commission set aside the Hearing Officer's decision and ordered a stay of proceedings on all counts.

Two police officers appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest without good and sufficient cause.

The officers had arrested a driver leaving a laneway near a suspected drug dealer's residence without observing any drug transaction or confirming the driver's identity.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's reasons were adequate in the administrative law context and that the officers lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for deceit and discreditable conduct, as well as the penalty of a six-month demotion, arising from his failure to properly investigate a fellow officer's possession of potentially stolen property.

The appellant argued the hearing officer misapprehended evidence and provided deficient reasons.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range of outcomes.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of dismissal arising from a 2004 traffic stop and drug seizure.

The Hearing Officer had found the Appellant guilty of neglect of duty based largely on hearsay utterances from a disgraced former officer and circumstantial evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer committed numerous errors of law, including admitting highly unreliable and prejudicial hearsay evidence, shifting the burden of proof onto the Appellant, making irreconcilable findings of fact, and improperly using his own police experience to fill gaps in the evidentiary record.

The finding of misconduct was quashed, rendering the penalty moot.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion imposed by a Hearing Officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer was biased, the prosecutor was unfair, and that it was fundamentally unfair to proceed with the hearing in his absence while he was on long-term disability.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias or prosecutorial unfairness.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer was legally correct to request medical information to substantiate the need for further adjournments and acted reasonably in proceeding in the appellant's absence after numerous delays and a persistent lack of cooperation.

The penalty of demotion was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted of impaired driving while off duty.

A joint submission proposed a forfeiture of 100 hours, but the Hearing Officer rejected it and imposed a 15-month demotion.

On appeal, the Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias in the Hearing Officer's decision to reject the joint submission or his reference to public opinion.

However, the Commission found the 15-month demotion was harsh and excessive, as the Hearing Officer failed to distinguish the appellant's circumstances from more serious cases and placed too much weight on general deterrence.

The penalty was varied to a 9-month demotion.

The appellant, a police sergeant, brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on his appeal of a discreditable conduct finding and demotion penalty.

The appellant argued the evidence, though chronologically available at the time of the hearing, was functionally unavailable because he was on long-term disability and did not participate.

The Commission applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding the first branch was not met because the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing.

The issue of whether the hearing officer erred in proceeding in the appellant's absence was deferred to the main appeal.

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

The officer had arrested a motorist for breach of the peace during a traffic stop after the motorist became agitated and argumentative.

The Hearing Officer found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest, as the motorist's behaviour did not pose an imminent risk of harm or breach of the peace.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review, upheld the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and credibility, and affirmed the penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours of work.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay for conducting unauthorized CPIC searches on an individual involved in a domestic relationship with the officer's friend.

The officer argued that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to order the disclosure of a 2007 investigation file regarding similar CPIC searches for which the officer was cleared.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the strict criminal disclosure standards from Stinchcombe do not apply to administrative police discipline hearings, and that the disclosure provided was sufficient to allow the officer to know the case to be met.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his conviction for insubordination arising from an off-duty traffic stop.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred in her definition of a 'traffic stop' and in her assessment of the evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's definition of a traffic stop was reasonable and that her conclusion that the appellant's actions constituted an off-duty traffic stop in violation of police policy was supported by the evidence.

The Port Hope Police Services Board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to terminate six civilian communicators in order to outsource communications and dispatch services to the Owen Sound Police Service.

After a public meeting and review of the proposed dispatching agreement, the Commission found that the outsourcing would continue to provide adequate and effective police services for Port Hope while addressing financial pressures.

The Commission consented to the application, ordering that any outstanding severance issues be submitted to arbitration if not resolved within 90 days.

The City of Pembroke applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to disband the Pembroke Police Service and contract policing services to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission found that the proposed OPP Integrated Detachment model would provide adequate and effective police services to the municipality.

The Commission granted consent to abolish the municipal police service, subject to the condition that if severance agreements with the affected employees are not reached within 90 days, the matters will proceed to arbitration.

The Corporation of the Town of Perth applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to disband the Perth Police Service and transition to an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Integrated Detachment Model.

The Commission held a public meeting to consider the proposal.

The Commission found that the OPP proposal would provide adequate and effective policing in accordance with the Town's needs, maintaining a comparable officer-to-population ratio and providing access to specialized OPP resources.

The Commission also found that fair severance arrangements had been made for all employees, ordering arbitration for the Chief of Police if an agreement could not be reached within 60 days.

The application for disbandment was granted.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion to amend a Notice of Hearing to add two new allegations against the respondent, a member of a police services board.

The respondent opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking conditions if the amendment was granted.

The Commission granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondent as no evidence had yet been adduced, and ordered that the respondent would not be required to lead evidence before a specified date.

The respondent, a member of a police services board, brought four preliminary motions seeking to stay or dismiss the proceedings against him.

He argued that the Commission failed to provide a motion record, that the Notice of Hearing lacked sufficient particulars, that there was a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias due to the Commission's dual investigative and adjudicative roles, and that he was entitled to transcripts from a separate proceeding.

The Commission dismissed all four motions, finding that no motion record was required for an investigation initiated on its own motion, the Notice of Hearing provided reasonable information of the allegations, the Commission's statutory structure and recusal policy prevented institutional bias, and there was no basis to order the disclosure of transcripts from an unrelated hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion seeking the return of allegedly privileged handwritten notes that were disclosed to the respondent, a member of a Police Services Board, in advance of a disciplinary hearing.

The Commission argued the disclosure was inadvertent.

The respondent argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction to order the return, the notes were not privileged, and any privilege was waived.

The panel found that while it had jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to order the return of improperly disclosed documents, the notes in question were not privileged.

Furthermore, even if they were privileged, the disclosure was not inadvertent because the Commission had no practice of vetting documents for privilege prior to disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.