OCPC 2023

The applicant sought to appeal a penalty decision imposing a two-year demotion for discreditable conduct.

The Notice of Appeal was filed more than 30 days after the applicant received the decision.

The applicant brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the appeal was filed outside the strict 30-day limitation period prescribed by section 87(1) of the Police Services Act, and that the Commission has no statutory jurisdiction to extend this timeline.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for assaulting a youth in a hospital.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in reopening the hearing to admit prior judicial commentary about his conduct, misapplied those findings as aggravating factors, and failed to properly consider his diagnosis of and rehabilitation from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer erred in his use of the prior judicial commentary as substantive evidence of misconduct and failed to adequately analyze the extensive medical evidence regarding the appellant's PTSD and rehabilitative potential.

A new penalty hearing before a different Hearing Officer was ordered.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision demoting her from first-class to third-class constable for one year, followed by one year as second-class constable, after she pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct relating to her refusal to comply with COVID-19 vaccine mandates at a hockey arena and subsequent inappropriate social media posts.

The Commission allowed the appeal in part, finding that making her progression through the ranks conditional on the 'concurrence' of her unit commander improperly granted unfettered discretion.

The condition was varied to 'as confirmed by her unit commander'.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, as the Hearing Officer made no errors in principle in weighing the appellant's rehabilitative efforts, expressions of remorse, or the consistency of the disposition.

The Commission previously revoked a Hearing Officer's finding that the respondent officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct for pointing a firearm at the public complainants, substituting a finding of guilt.

The Commission solicited submissions on whether it was in the public interest to vary the penalty at this stage.

Given that the incident occurred over a decade ago and the proceedings had been subject to excessive delay, the Commission determined it was not in the public interest to order a new penalty hearing or to vary the penalty itself.

The original penalty remained unchanged.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the findings of guilt for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and insubordination, as well as the penalty of dismissal imposed by a hearing officer.

The misconduct involved unauthorized police database queries of individuals connected to his brother's criminal investigation, failure to disclose personal connections to persons of interest in a firearms investigation, and insubordination during a compelled interview.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's factual conclusions reasonable, the admission of evidence from a Criminal Code production order lawful, and the penalty of dismissal appropriate given the serious and repeated nature of the misconduct.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who was found guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct regarding his investigation into the sudden death of an Indigenous man.

The officer had been demoted for 18 months and ordered to complete cultural competency training.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the issues raised regarding the appropriate penalty and the consideration of the Indigenous community's perspective were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion imposed after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct, insubordination, and unlawful use of force against an Indigenous civilian.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by failing to give appropriate weight to medical evidence of his PTSD and rehabilitation, failing to consider the civilian's lack of complaint, and failing to apply the principle of progressive discipline.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the dispositional factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage to the reputation of the police service, in determining that demotion was the appropriate penalty.

Two police officers appealed findings of misconduct for unlawfully arresting two Black youths for assaulting police, and one officer appealed a finding of excessive force for punching a third youth.

The public complainants cross-appealed the finding that the officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct for pointing his firearm at them.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in his analysis of arrest powers under the Criminal Code but substituted its own finding of misconduct for the unlawful arrests.

The Commission confirmed the finding of excessive force for the punch.

Finally, the Commission revoked the not guilty finding regarding the firearm, finding the Hearing Officer erred by failing to consider the Use of Force Regulation and improperly relying on his own experience, and substituted a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct for allegedly making racist and sexually suggestive comments to a civilian employee during a ride-along.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing, finding that the hearing officer made fundamental errors in his credibility analysis.

Specifically, the hearing officer improperly shifted the burden of proof to the appellant by requiring him to explain why the complainant would fabricate the allegations, and unreasonably failed to consider the impact of subsequent friendly text messages between the parties on the complainant's credibility.

The applicant, the former Chief of the Thunder Bay Police Service, was charged with misconduct under the Police Services Act.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant resigned and brought a motion to quash the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent consented to the motion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that because the applicant had resigned, she was no longer a police officer under the Act, and pursuant to section 90(1), the Commission lost jurisdiction to proceed.

The misconduct counts were dismissed.

The applicant police officer pled guilty to misconduct and was demoted.

He subsequently went on extended sick leave, which impacted the financial consequences of his penalty.

After an arbitrator dismissed his grievance regarding the penalty's implementation, the applicant brought a motion under section 78 of the Police Services Act asking the Commission to vary the penalty or return it to the Hearing Officer.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 78 to revisit a penalty due to changed circumstances, and that the applicant was barred from relitigating the issue by the doctrine of issue estoppel.