Administrative Law - OCPC

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a conviction for neglect of duty arising from his handling of an incident involving an off-duty officer.

The appellant had instructed his junior officers to prepare reports but chose not to confront the off-duty officer at his home in the early morning hours, opting instead to verify the home was quiet and report to his superior later.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that the appellant properly exercised his discretion and investigated the matter with due diligence given the circumstances.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of forfeiture of four days' pay for insubordination.

He was charged after engaging a stopped driver in an unsolicited religious conversation, contrary to a direct order previously issued to him.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the conversation occurred, was religious in nature, and breached the order.

The Commission dismissed the appeal against both conviction and penalty, noting the appellant's prior disciplinary record for identical conduct.

The Durham Regional Police Force applied to lift the statutory stay of a penalty ordering the appellant police officer to resign or be dismissed.

The appellant had been suspended with pay for nearly three years and was convicted of criminal offences, including obstruction of justice, as well as Police Act offences for corrupt practice and discreditable conduct.

The Commission exercised its discretion under s. 25 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act to lift the stay, citing the combination of the lengthy suspension, the serious nature of the criminal convictions striking at the heart of police duties, and the severity of the penalty imposed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty requiring him to resign or be summarily dismissed after pleading guilty to multiple counts of misconduct, including insubordination and neglect of duty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission first ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to admit new evidence of post-hearing conduct absent special circumstances, and that it could not impose penalties outside the prescribed statutory scheme.

On the merits, the Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the appellant's alcoholism, his extensive prior disciplinary record and psychological assessments indicating an inability to function as a First Class Constable justified the termination of his employment.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the penalty of resignation.

The charge arose from a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl.

The appellant had been acquitted of criminal sexual assault charges because the Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the conduct was discreditable and contrary to society's expectations.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of resignation, noting the appellant's prior criminal and Police Act convictions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer was convicted of neglect of duty for failing to prepare a fingerprint comparison chart prior to a preliminary hearing, resulting in the withdrawal of criminal charges.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant should have used his rest days to complete the task.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission set aside the conviction, finding that the appellant had made a diligent attempt to fulfill his duties during his regular working hours and that the expectation to use rest days was based on hindsight.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of neglect of duty arising from his failure to properly acknowledge and accept an emergency dispatch call regarding a child with scissors stuck in her head.

Although the officer immediately drove toward the scene, he failed to activate the 'Accept Detail' button or advise the dispatcher, instead stating he was off shift in fifteen minutes.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the failure to properly acknowledge the call and proceed without hesitation in the prescribed manner constituted neglect of duty.

An application was brought to determine whether the secretary to the chief of police and the secretary to the deputy chief of police of the Brockville Police Force are "senior officers" under Section 30 of the Police Act.

The Ontario Police Commission found that the secretary to the chief of police qualifies as a senior officer because her duties involve highly confidential matters related to budget preparation, negotiations, and discipline.

However, the Commission ruled that the secretary to the deputy chief of police does not qualify as a senior officer, as it is not necessary for the good management of the force for her to be privy to such confidential information, which could be handled by the chief's secretary.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for deceit under the Police Services Act.

He was charged with negligently making an inaccurate statement in a report regarding an arrest, after failing to consult his notes.

The appellant argued the document was an unsigned draft and had not been formally submitted.

The Commission found the document was intended as a report and was placed in the system, upholding the conviction.

The penalty of forfeiting five days' pay was also upheld, given the seriousness of the inaccuracy in the context of responding to public criticism of the police force.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions and penalties from two separate disciplinary trials.

In the first trial, he was reduced in rank for neglect of duty after failing to meet performance appraisal objectives over a twelve-month period.

The Commission found the objectives were reasonable and did not constitute an illegal order.

In the second trial, he was ordered to resign or be dismissed for neglect of duty and deceit related to failing to follow up on an investigation and falsely reporting its status to dispose of evidence.

The Commission dismissed both appeals, upholding the convictions and penalties.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The officer had arrested a civilian for mischief after the civilian refused to provide identification while rummaging through garbage.

The Commission upheld the finding that the arrest was unlawful, as the officer admitted he made the arrest solely to obtain identification and knew there was no evidence to support a mischief charge.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the officer's prior disciplinary record, his admission that he would repeat his actions, and his poor attitude toward the public and discipline.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty imposed following his conviction on two counts of discreditable conduct.

The charges related to providing false information to investigating officers regarding a friend's bank deposit and falsely endorsing a passport application.

The hearing officer imposed a penalty of reduction in rank to Third Class Constable with conditions for reinstatement.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty modest given the serious nature of the offences, which could have justified dismissal.

Constable Burgess appealed his convictions and dismissal for deceit and unnecessary exercise of authority under the Code of Discipline.

The charges arose from an incident where he used force to lift an uncooperative prisoner from a chair, resulting in an accidental injury, and subsequently filed an inaccurate Occurrence Report.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission admitted fresh evidence and quashed both convictions.

The Commission found the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and that, while the Occurrence Report was incomplete and inaccurate, there was no evidence of an intent to mislead or deceive.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for making an unnecessary arrest.

The officer had stopped a vehicle for excessive speeding and, due to safety concerns, ordered the three young occupants out of the car at gunpoint, pushed the driver to the ground, and searched them.

The hearing officer convicted the appellant and imposed a penalty of the loss of two days' pay.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding ample evidence to support it.

However, the Commission found the officer's conduct awful and the penalty insufficient, increasing the fine to the maximum permitted loss of five days' pay.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty imposed following his guilty plea to discreditable conduct for an off-duty impaired driving conviction.

The officer, an admitted alcoholic who had since sought treatment, was reduced in rank to Fourth Class Constable (High) for six months.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty, noting the serious nature of drinking and driving offences and the change in public attitude, while acknowledging the officer's rehabilitative efforts and potential as mitigating factors.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of forced resignation or dismissal after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for shoplifting items worth approximately $70.

The appellant presented psychiatric evidence that he was under severe stress due to his own battle with Hodgkin's disease and his father's serious illness.

The Commission accepted that the stress explained, but did not excuse, the conduct, and upheld the finding of guilt.

However, considering the appellant's 18 years of unblemished service and his mental turmoil, the Commission found dismissal too severe.

The penalty was varied to a reduction in rank from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable for at least six months.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of three days off for failing to report for duty.

The Commission found that the original hearing was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Chief of Police presided while the Deputy Chief, who gave the order in question, acted as prosecuting officer.

The Commission also found that the local board's appeal process violated natural justice by proceeding without the appellant and before he received the hearing transcript.

The Commission quashed both decisions and elected to decide the matter itself.

It held that while the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the appellant's leave were unfair, they did not constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to report for duty.

The conviction was upheld, but the penalty was reduced to forfeiture of one day off.

The Town of Napanee applied to the Ontario Police Commission for consent to abolish its municipal police force in order to contract policing services from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

Various community members, police associations, and citizens made representations regarding the adequacy of the current force, the cost savings of the OPP contract, and the impact on current officers and the community.

The Commission determined it had jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of both the existing and proposed policing services.

Finding no evidence that either the current or proposed policing was inadequate, the Commission granted consent to disband the municipal force, subject to conditions ensuring that current members are either offered employment with the OPP or provided with fair severance determined by binding arbitration.

The appellant, a police constable convicted of deceit and dismissed from the force, applied for an order declaring that a letter sent by the Police Association requesting an extension of time to file an appeal constituted a valid Notice of Appeal under Regulation 791 of the Police Act.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the application, finding that the letter explicitly requested an extension of time and could not be construed as a Notice of Appeal itself.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Board of Commissioners of Police affirming his conviction for assaulting a fellow officer and varying his penalty from dismissal to a reduction in rank.

The appellant argued the assault was trivial, the Board erred in considering his past record, and the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding sufficient evidence of an assault intended to intimidate.

The Commission varied the penalty by imposing a nine-month time limit on the reduction in rank, holding that an indefinite reduction improperly delegated the ultimate penalty decision.