OCPC 2022

The appellant police officer appealed findings of misconduct (neglect of duty and deceit) and the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer.

The misconduct arose from the appellant's failure to properly investigate a suspected impaired driver and his subsequent false explanations to his supervisor and Professional Standards Bureau.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer did not misapprehend the expert evidence, drew reasonable inferences from the facts, and appropriately weighed the dispositional factors in imposing the penalty of dismissal.

The applicant police officer's appeal of a misconduct finding was previously dismissed by the Commission for failure to perfect the appeal.

The applicant subsequently filed a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the dismissal.

The Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Notice because its prior decision was a final order, rendering the Commission functus officio.

The Commission noted it has no statutory power to reconsider its decisions and that a Notice of Constitutional Question cannot initiate a new proceeding.

The applicant's proper remedy is to seek judicial review.

The respondent, a former Deputy Chief of Police, was subject to disciplinary hearings under the Police Services Act.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the respondent resigned from his position.

The Commission determined that it lost jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing because the respondent was no longer a 'police officer' within the meaning of the Act.

The counts of misconduct were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct and penalty of demotion.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal because the appellant failed to perfect it by obtaining the necessary transcripts of the disciplinary hearing.

Despite multiple pre-hearing conferences and directions from the Commission, the appellant failed to provide the transcripts or establish that the audio recordings were incapable of transcription.

The Commission found that the appellant had not shown a bona fide intention to pursue the appeal diligently.

The respondent's motion was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.