OCPC 2013

The applicant, a member of a police services board, brought a motion seeking the recusal of a panel member from his disciplinary hearing.

The applicant argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the panel member had previously adjudicated a disciplinary matter involving the Chief of Police, whose conduct the applicant claimed was factually connected to his own charges.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding no material connection between the two cases that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the panel member lacked an open mind.

The prior decision involved a penalty following a guilty plea and made no findings regarding the applicant.

The applicant, a civilian manager of the Niagara Regional Police Service's Video Unit, applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to be classified as a senior officer under s. 116 of the Police Services Act.

The application was opposed by the Niagara Regional Police Association.

The Commission applied the factors from the Metro Toronto Police Association decision to determine if the applicant was employed in a supervisory or confidential capacity under s. 114.

Finding that the applicant exercised significant responsibility, initiative, and supervisory duties over his unit and the Ontario Police Video Training Alliance, the Commission granted the application and ordered that he be classified as a senior officer.

The Durham Regional Police Association and the Durham Regional Police Senior Officers' Association filed a joint application to determine whether the Dean of Police Education and Innovation is a member of the police service.

The Chief of Police brought a motion seeking party status as an 'affected person' under s. 116 of the Police Services Act, and requesting that the Durham Regional Police Association be denied party status.

The Commission granted the Chief's motion for party status, finding he has a direct interest in the matter, but denied the request to remove the Association as a party, finding it premature.

The appellant brought a motion to adduce new evidence on appeal, specifically transcripts from his criminal trial, and requested that the respondent police service acquire and provide them.

The appellant had previously declined to obtain or use the transcripts during the disciplinary hearing.

Applying the Palmer test, the Commission found that the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing with due diligence.

The motion was dismissed.