OCPC 2024

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of 32 hours forfeiture.

The officer had submitted profane and insulting comments criticizing equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives to an anonymous virtual suggestion box.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer reasonably concluded the comments were not protected by case-by-case privilege and the proceedings were not an abuse of process.

The Commission also held that the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the officer's freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, as the penalty targeted the abusive language rather than the expression of dissent.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of unlawful exercise of authority and neglect of duty.

The charges arose from an incident where the appellant continued the arrest of an individual after learning the individual had been mistakenly identified as the target of an investigation, and failed to provide rights to counsel.

The Commission confirmed the finding of unlawful exercise of authority, holding that the continued arrest after the misidentification became known was unlawful.

However, the Commission revoked the finding of neglect of duty, finding the hearing officer erred in law by relying on his own experience rather than uncontradicted evidence regarding whose duty it was to provide rights to counsel.

A new hearing was ordered for the neglect of duty charge and the penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and deceit, and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved fabricating an anonymous traffic complaint against a known community member, conducting unauthorized database queries, and making false statements during the subsequent investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments, rejection of the appellant's medical defence, and conclusion that the telecommunication recording system was reliable were reasonable.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as falling within the reasonable range given the seriousness of the misconduct.

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct after stating to his partner that he was so mad he was going to shoot another officer in the head.

The Hearing Officer imposed a penalty of a six-month demotion and anger management, finding the conduct met the elements of the criminal offence of uttering threats.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in principle by characterizing the past-tense utterance as a criminal death threat, which erroneously heightened the seriousness of the misconduct and led to a disproportionate penalty.

The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was varied to a forfeiture of seven days and completion of an anger management program.

The appellant filed a public complaint regarding a police officer's conduct during a traffic stop.

After the Chief of Police concluded the misconduct was not serious enough to warrant a hearing, the appellant requested a review by the Independent Police Review Director under section 71 of the Police Services Act.

The Director directed the Chief to serve a Notice of Hearing but explicitly instructed the Chief not to apply to the Board for a finding that the delay was reasonable under section 83(17), despite more than six months having passed.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges for noncompliance with section 83(17).

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that section 83(17) applies to the pre-charge period including a section 71 review, and failure to obtain the Board's opinion on the reasonableness of the delay resulted in a loss of jurisdiction.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty decision ordering his resignation or dismissal following a guilty plea to two counts of discreditable conduct related to intimate partner violence against two different complainants.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in principle on several grounds, including the treatment of McNeil reporting requirements, double-counting the Service's Intimate Partner Violence Unit as an aggravating factor, discounting character letters, and finding he could not be rehabilitated.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle in the Hearing Officer's application of dispositional factors and confirming the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant, a police officer on leave with PTSD, was found guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for refusing to attend interviews, harassing another officer, and making numerous offensive and derogatory posts about the police service on Twitter.

The Hearing Officer ordered her dismissal.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decisions to deny the appellant's requests for an indefinite adjournment and to proceed in absentia.

The Commission found no procedural unfairness and upheld the findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The Commission also conducted a Doré analysis and concluded that the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the appellant's Charter right to freedom of expression.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct and ordering his dismissal, as well as the decision to prospectively lift the automatic stay of penalty.

The officer had requested an adjournment for medical reasons, which was denied.

His counsel then withdrew, and the hearing proceeded in his absence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the adjournment was properly denied, proceeding in absentia without confirming the officer had notice or intended to retain new counsel was procedurally unfair.

The Commission also found the Hearing Officer erred in lifting the stay of penalty by failing to consider the merits of the appeal and the prejudice to the officer.

The findings of misconduct were quashed, a new hearing was ordered, and the stay of penalty was restored.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision ordering his resignation or termination after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for stealing $175 from a member of the public.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in weighing mitigating factors, including his mental health diagnoses, expressions of remorse, and letters of support, and in applying the test for dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded that the seriousness of the misconduct, the appellant's prior disciplinary record for dishonesty, and the resulting reputational damage to the police service outweighed the mitigating factors and justified dismissal.

The public complainant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing misconduct charges against a police officer due to noncompliance with the six-month delay provision in s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent officer objected to the Independent Police Review Director participating in the leave application.

The Commission held that the Director has standing to participate in pre-hearing steps, including leave applications.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the interplay between the Director's oversight powers and the Police Services Board's obligations regarding delay raises issues of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and ordering a forfeiture of 80 hours.

The misconduct stemmed from a $50 donation the appellant made to the Freedom Convoy while off-duty and on an unpaid leave of absence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the finding of misconduct, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the protests were illegal at the time of the donation.

The Commission declined to hear an abuse of process argument raised for the first time on appeal.

Although the Hearing Officer erred by failing to conduct a Doré analysis to balance the appellant's section 2(b) Charter right to freedom of expression against the statutory objectives of the Police Services Act, the Commission conducted the analysis and found the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the right.

The penalty of 80 hours forfeiture was affirmed as reasonable.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his discharge under s. 47(2) of the Police Services Act to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Waterloo Police Association (WRPA) and the Police Association of Ontario (PAO) brought motions to intervene in the appeal, and the Chief of Police sought to confirm his status as a respondent.

The Commission granted intervenor status to the PAO as amicus and to the WRPA with participatory rights to be determined.

The Commission also confirmed the Chief of Police as a respondent on the appeal, noting his full participation in the proceeding below, without deciding whether his participation below was proper.

The public complainants appealed the penalty imposed on a police officer found guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct in relation to the sudden death investigation of an Indigenous man.

The Hearing Officer had ordered an 18-month demotion and cultural competency training.

The complainants argued the officer should be dismissed, citing the public interest, the importance of reconciliation, and region-specific demands regarding anti-Indigenous racism.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed all relevant factors, including the public interest and reconciliation, and did not err in concluding that dismissal was not warranted.

The Appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from his role as the lead investigator into the sudden death of an Indigenous man, where he prematurely concluded the death was non-criminal and failed to conduct a basic investigation.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable, including the finding that the Appellant's deficient investigation was rooted in racial bias and stereotypes.

The appeal was dismissed and the findings and penalty were confirmed.