OCPC 2015

The appellant police officer brought a motion within her disciplinary appeal to adduce fresh evidence and obtain disclosure regarding her permanent removal from the Emergency Response Team (ERT).

She argued the removal constituted disguised discipline that resulted in a loss of specialty and overtime pay, which should have been considered by the Hearing Officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the Palmer test and granted the request to adduce fresh evidence regarding the financial impact of her removal.

The Commission also applied the West Park Hospital test and ordered the respondent to disclose materials related to the removal decision, finding the information arguably relevant to the live issue of whether the removal was disguised discipline or a purely operational decision.

The appellant police officer was suspended with pay and ordered by the Chief of Police to disclose his income and hours worked from secondary employment.

The officer refused, arguing that because his secondary employment commenced prior to his suspension, he was exempt from reporting under section 89(8) of the Police Services Act.

He was convicted of insubordination at a disciplinary hearing.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding that section 89(8) does not excuse an officer from complying with a lawful order of the Chief to disclose secondary employment information, which the Chief is entitled to request to ensure the officer is not engaged in full-time employment for another person.