Administrative Law - OCPC

The appellant police officer was found guilty of disciplinary offences and ordered dismissed.

He appealed to the Commission.

After the appeal was heard but before a decision was rendered, the appellant retired.

The Commission held that pursuant to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act, it lacks jurisdiction to continue with an appeal or render a decision once an appellant is no longer a police officer.

The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the decision of a Hearing Officer dismissing charges of neglect of duty against three Ottawa Police Service officers.

The charges arose from the officers' investigation of a physical altercation involving the appellant, specifically regarding the failure to photograph the appellant's injuries, failure to review a seized camera, and failure to complete a return to justice form.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law, did not exhibit bias, provided adequate assistance to the unrepresented appellant, and properly assessed the evidence.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's claim of prosecutorial incompetence.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for neglect of duty and unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority arising from his use of force against an intoxicated, handcuffed individual in a police cruiser.

The Commission revoked the finding of guilt for unlawful exercise of authority, finding the Hearing Officer applied the wrong standard of proof, improperly relied on personal experience to determine the cause of the individual's injury, and made irreconcilably inconsistent findings of credibility.

However, the Commission confirmed the finding of guilt for neglect of duty, upholding the determination that the appellant deliberately misled his supervisor and failed to properly document the use of force in his notes and reports.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for speaking at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization while off-duty, contrary to a direct order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under section 49(1) of the Police Services Act.

However, the Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction, ruling that the Hearing Officer erred by applying a subjective test rather than an objective reasonable person test to assess whether the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force.

The respondent police service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant officer's appeal as untimely under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant had been demoted with conditional reinstatement, but was not reinstated following a subsequent suspension.

After an arbitrator ruled the dispute was disciplinary and not arbitrable, the appellant appealed to the Commission.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the 30-day time limit in section 87(1) did not apply because no hearing had taken place.

The Commission further held it had jurisdiction under section 78(1) because the complaints process was not completed given the conditional nature of the original penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision requiring her to resign or face termination after she pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and deceit for submitting fraudulent health benefit claims.

The appellant argued the penalty was harsh, excessive, and inconsistent with similar cases where officers were demoted rather than dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly considered the usefulness test, the officer's short tenure, and the severity of the repetitive fraud.

A dissenting member would have substituted a penalty of demotion based on consistency with prior disciplinary cases.

The Solicitor General requested the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to investigate the Peterborough Police Services Board due to ongoing dysfunction.

The Commission found that the Board's inability to discharge its statutory responsibilities, including failing to prepare a business plan and manage routine business, constituted an emergency.

Pursuant to section 24(1) of the Police Services Act, the Commission issued an interim order appointing an administrator to oversee the Board's functions and ensure compliance with statutory obligations.

The Appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to deliver a Notice of Appeal regarding a police discipline matter.

The Respondent officer argued the appeal was out of time under the Commission's Rules.

The Commission found that the Appellant had formed an intention to appeal within the relevant time period and that the justice of the case required an extension.

The motion was granted, allowing the Notice of Appeal to be filed nunc pro tunc.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer, which imposed a forfeiture of five days' pay on the respondent officer for discreditable conduct related to an assault during the G20 Summit.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the matters raised were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large, satisfying the third branch of the test for leave to appeal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing her from the Windsor Police Service after she was found guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from an incident where the appellant failed to declare alcohol at the US-Canada border, repeatedly lied to border officers, and subsequently sought to use her position to exact revenge on the border officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding that the appellant's consistent pattern of deceit, lack of remorse, and retaliatory conduct outweighed her positive employment history and irreparably damaged her ability to function as a police officer and the reputation of the police service.

The appellant, an unrepresented public complainant, appealed the dismissal of disciplinary charges against a police officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer breached natural justice and procedural fairness by failing to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission agreed, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to provide the minimum level of assistance required for an unrepresented party, such as explaining the process, confirming his understanding, and inviting him to call or cross-examine witnesses.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing was ordered.

The Midland Police Services Board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to reduce its civilian staff by terminating eight civilian radio operators and outsourcing dispatch and communications services to the Owen Sound Police Service.

The Commission held a public meeting to hear from the Board, the Midland Police Association, affected employees, and the public.

The Commission found that the proposed outsourcing would maintain adequate and effective policing in Midland, noting the modern facilities and successful track record of the Owen Sound communications centre.

As the parties reached a settlement regarding severance for the affected employees, the Commission consented to the application.

The Chief of Police pled guilty to discreditable conduct after cancelling two Provincial Offence Notices issued to a city councillor for running a red light and failing to produce valid insurance.

The Chief cancelled the tickets without consulting the issuing officer or following proper procedures.

The Commission determined that the conduct undermined the rule of law and the fair administration of justice.

Balancing the Chief's exemplary employment record against the need for general deterrence, the Commission ordered a penalty of forfeiture of 5 days of work or 40 hours of pay.

The appellant, a retired Staff Sergeant, appealed a decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and neglect of duty, as well as the subsequent penalty decision demoting him.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the appellant retired from the police service.

On consent of all parties, the Commission dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction due to the appellant's retirement.

The Amherstburg Police Service brought a motion to file three affidavits responding to allegations of breaches of natural justice and procedural fairness in a disciplinary proceeding.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged breaches could be determined by reference to the record, making the affidavit evidence unnecessary and unfair.

The Commission also noted that it is improper for a Hearing Officer to swear an affidavit explaining their conduct after the fact.

The Appellant, an off-duty police officer, removed mulch from a school property without permission and subsequently misled the investigating officer.

He was found guilty of discreditable conduct and demoted from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for one year.

He appealed the finding of guilt and the penalty to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decisions on credibility, admission of hearsay evidence, and penalty were reasonable and supported by clear and cogent evidence.

Constable Wong appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of a one-day suspension without pay for making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The public complainant also appealed the penalty, arguing it was inadequate.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law regarding the burden of proof and the essential elements of the misconduct charge.

However, the Commission exercised its power to substitute its own decision, finding that the evidence supported the misconduct charge on a balance of probabilities.

The Commission upheld the one-day suspension penalty as reasonable.

The appellant police officer brought a motion to strike portions of a factum delivered by the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), acting as a statutory intervener in her disciplinary appeal.

The appellant argued the OIPRD overstepped its permissible boundaries by making submissions not based on the record and inviting policy considerations.

The Commission held it had jurisdiction to strike portions of a factum under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to control its own process.

The Commission struck one paragraph that requested an order beyond the OIPRD's mandate, but dismissed the remainder of the motion, finding the other impugned paragraphs were not so obviously irrelevant or inappropriately prejudicial as to justify being struck.

The appellant in a police discipline appeal brought a motion to introduce an affidavit alleging prosecutorial incompetence and breaches of natural justice during the hearing.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the affidavit did not qualify as fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

Applying the Keeprite test, the Commission held that affidavit evidence to supplement the record is only admissible in rare circumstances where the alleged breach cannot be proven by reference to the record.

Because the appellant's allegations could be ascertained from the hearing transcripts, the affidavit was inadmissible.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination under the Code of Conduct.

The officer had refused an order from a superior to change his investigative conclusion on a Motor Vehicle Collision Report, maintaining his honest belief that a civilian driver, rather than a fellow officer, was at fault.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer breached natural justice by making a finding on liability without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the order was unlawful because it would have forced the officer to sign a document he believed to be inaccurate, which is tantamount to deceit under the Code of Conduct.

The conviction was substituted with an acquittal.