Administrative Law - OCPC

The respondent police service brought an unopposed motion for a sealing order regarding certain exhibits, transcripts, and factum references from a police disciplinary hearing.

The materials contained highly sensitive intelligence information obtained from a confidential informant, as well as personal and criminal histories of non-parties.

Applying both the common law test from Donovan v. Sherman Estate and section 2(2) of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, 2019, the Commission found that the privacy interests of the non-parties and the need to protect confidential informants outweighed the open court principle.

The motion for a sealing order was granted.

The Solicitor General requested the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior members of the Durham Regional Police Service and the oversight provided by the Durham Regional Police Services Board.

Following a preliminary review, the Commission found a crisis of confidence within the Service, characterized by allegations of cronyism, workplace harassment, and retaliatory discipline.

Concluding that this crisis constituted an emergency that could negatively affect policing and hamper the investigation, the Executive Chair ordered a formal investigation and appointed an Administrator to oversee promotions, internal disciplinary processes, and secondary activity applications.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act misconduct charges against two officers due to delay.

The Hearing Officer had found the delay amounted to an abuse of process under the Blencoe framework.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the matter raised issues of significant importance to the policing profession and the community, particularly regarding the role of a public complainant's interests in a Blencoe analysis and the impact of parallel criminal proceedings on administrative delay.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a reprimand for the superintendent's role in ordering the unlawful arrest and detention of the complainants.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for such unprecedented and highly scrutinized Charter breaches was of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The superintendent had been found guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and discreditable conduct for ordering the 'kettling' and unlawful arrest of protestors, and was penalized with a forfeiture of 30 days off.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for a senior commander in these unprecedented circumstances is of significant importance to the policing profession and the public.

Two police officers appealed findings of misconduct and penalties arising from the unlawful arrest of a civilian during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct findings, concluding the Hearing Officer reasonably assessed credibility and correctly found the officers lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest and used excessive force.

However, the Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating one officer's untruthful testimony as an aggravating factor for penalty.

The penalty for the arresting officer was reduced from a two-month to a one-month demotion.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for allegedly using unnecessary force during the G20 summit.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the Notice of Hearing served on the officer differed from the draft notice approved by the Police Services Board in a delay application under section 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's role under section 83(17) is limited to determining whether the delay in serving the notice was reasonable, not approving the specific wording of the charge.

The Commission revoked the stay and remitted the matter for a re-hearing.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision imposing the penalty of immediate dismissal following his guilty plea to a charge of use of unnecessary force.

The officer had assaulted a handcuffed, intoxicated prisoner in the back of a scout car after daring the prisoner to spit in his face.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors, including the officer's prior disciplinary record and the egregious nature of the assault.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's decision to be reasonable and confirmed the penalty of immediate dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for insubordination after discharging his firearm at a fleeing vehicle, contrary to a Toronto Police Service procedure.

The appellant argued he had a lawful excuse due to an honest, subjective belief that his life was in imminent danger.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that a lawful excuse requires both a subjective belief and objectively reasonable actions.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the appellant's actions were not objectively reasonable, as he had removed himself from the imminent threat before firing.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of a 20-month demotion from Sergeant to First Class Constable imposed following his guilty plea to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved off-duty impaired driving and an altercation with a witness.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by considering facts not in evidence, giving insufficient weight to mitigating factors, misdirecting himself on internal policies, and improperly differentiating joint submission cases.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found no clear error in principle and confirmed the penalty, emphasizing the seriousness of drinking and driving by police officers.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of forfeiture of eight days' pay.

The misconduct involved the officer repeatedly accepting free meals from a restaurant while in uniform.

The Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review to the finding of misconduct and the penalty.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible, and that the penalty was within the appropriate range given the officer's conduct and disciplinary history.

The appeal was dismissed and the decision confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for Discreditable Conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal from the police service.

The officer had previously pleaded guilty to the disciplinary charge, which was based on a criminal conviction that was later overturned on appeal.

The Commission held that the subsequent overturning of the criminal conviction did not render the original, informed guilty plea a nullity.

The Commission further found that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the officer's disciplinary history and the serious nature of the misconduct, which involved violence and threats against members of the public.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's appeal for failure to serve a Notice of Appeal within the thirty-day statutory period under the Police Services Act.

The complainant faxed the Notice of Appeal on the thirtieth day, but under section 96(2) of the Act, faxed documents are deemed received on the following day.

The Commission held that the appeal was served on the thirty-first day and that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit.

The appeal was dismissed as untimely.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing misconduct charges against two police officers for allegedly making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The appellant had been arrested for wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence after officers observed him wearing an orange bandana over his face.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges based entirely on finding the appellant not credible, without analyzing the legal elements of a lawful arrest under the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons inadequate, as they failed to address whether the officers had subjective and objective reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing before a different Hearing Officer.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by appearing to reverse the burden of proof, requiring the officer to prove he had reasonable and probable grounds.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to adequately analyze the officer's subjective belief and whether there was good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

Given the excessive delay of over five years, the Commission revoked the finding of misconduct rather than remitting the matter for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against four police officers for failing to make an approved screening device (ASD) demand following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Hearing Officer had ruled that the driver's admission of alcohol consumption was a legally compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act and could not be used to form reasonable suspicion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found this ruling unreasonable, as there was no evidence the driver subjectively believed he was legally compelled to report the accident.

The Commission revoked the dismissal for the two first-responding officers and remitted the matter for continuation, but confirmed the dismissal for the two later-arriving officers who could not have made a demand 'forthwith'.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct related to unauthorized secondary employment.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of unauthorized secondary employment during the cross-examination of the appellant, effectively splitting its case.

The Commission also found that the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt lacked an evidentiary foundation and adequate reasoning, as the appellant's undisputed testimony indicated he had received verbal approval for his secondary employment.

The conviction was revoked.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that found a police officer not guilty of breach of confidence.

Before the written decision was released, the officer retired from the Ontario Provincial Police.

The retired officer brought a motion challenging the Commission's jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Commission granted the motion, finding that under the Police Services Act, it only has jurisdiction over active police officers.

Because the officer had retired, he was no longer a police officer as defined by the Act, and the Commission therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellant successfully appealed a hearing officer's decision, resulting in findings of misconduct against two police officers for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

This decision determines the appropriate penalty.

The Commission considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the officers' employment histories, and the element of provocation by the appellant.

Constable Parker, who initiated the arrest, was suspended without pay for 32 hours.

Constable Koscinski, who assisted, was ordered to forfeit 16 hours off.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing allegations of misconduct against two police officers.

The officers had arrested the appellant for causing a disturbance in a courtroom while a Justice of the Peace was presiding, subsequently using force to remove him.

The Commission revoked the hearing officer's decision, finding that the officers' general authority to arrest for a disturbance was superseded by the presiding Justice of the Peace's authority to control the courtroom and deal with contempt.

The Commission concluded the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary, rendering the force used unjustified, and found the officers guilty of misconduct.