Administrative Law - OCPC

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty decision imposing a forfeiture of 20 days or 160 hours of pay for neglect of duty in relation to a fatal accident investigation.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made several manifest errors, including imposing a penalty not authorized by the Police Services Act, considering uncharged allegations, misapplying sentencing principles, and failing to consider the systemic lack of support provided to the officer.

The appeal was allowed and the penalty was reduced to a forfeiture of 6 days or 48 hours off.

The appellant police officer sought to appeal two preliminary rulings by a Hearing Officer that denied his motions to dismiss a disciplinary charge for allegedly failing to meet the six-month limitation period under section 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission held that its jurisdiction under section 70(1) of the Act is limited to appeals of final orders.

Because the Hearing Officer's rulings did not finally dispose of the disciplinary allegations against the appellant, they were interlocutory.

The appeal was dismissed as premature, and the disciplinary hearing was directed to proceed.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The Commission previously revoked the finding and substituted a determination of guilt, finding the respondent engaged in vexatious behaviour by repeatedly contacting the appellant after their relationship ended, despite warnings from superior officers.

In this penalty decision, the Commission considered the respondent's lengthy positive work record and the seriousness of the misconduct.

The Commission ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and lose 25 hours of pay, which cannot be satisfied by accumulated credits.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The Commission previously revoked that finding and substituted a determination of guilt, finding the respondent engaged in a vexatious course of conduct by repeatedly contacting the appellant after their relationship ended, including while on duty and in uniform.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the respondent's 28-year unblemished record against the seriousness of the misconduct.

The Commission ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and lose 25 hours of pay, which cannot be satisfied by applying accumulated credits.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The Commission previously revoked that finding and substituted a determination of guilt, finding the respondent engaged in a vexatious course of conduct by repeatedly contacting the appellant after their relationship ended, despite warnings from superiors.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the respondent's lengthy positive work record against the seriousness of the misconduct.

The Commission ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and lose 25 hours of pay, which cannot be satisfied by applying accumulated credits.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of insubordination.

While suspended with pay due to criminal charges, he was prohibited from entering police property.

He attended a police division to retrieve videotape disclosure for his criminal defence, arguing he had an honest and mistaken belief he was allowed to do so.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding it was unreasonable for the appellant to unilaterally decide the prohibition did not apply without making inquiries.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The respondent had engaged in a course of unwanted contact with the appellant following the end of their relationship, including attending her workplace while on duty and having a child deliver a letter to her home.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer erred by applying subjective elements, such as the appellant's state of mind and the opinions of superior officers, rather than the objective test of whether the conduct would likely discredit the police service.

The Commission revoked the not guilty finding and substituted a conviction for discreditable conduct.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The respondent had engaged in a course of unwanted contact with the appellant following the end of their relationship, including attending her workplace and home while on duty and in uniform, despite being counseled by superior officers to stay away.

The Commission denied a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

On the merits, the Commission found the Hearing Officer erred by applying subjective elements to the test for discreditable conduct.

Applying the objective standard of the reasonable expectations of the community, the Commission revoked the finding of not guilty and substituted a conviction for discreditable conduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a nine-day penalty imposed following a guilty plea to insubordination for improperly accessing CPIC information and releasing it to his father.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred procedurally by accepting unsworn victim impact statements and going beyond the agreed statement of fact.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty was within the appropriate range and the Hearing Officer had authority under section 15 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act to receive the statements, though noting a preference for sworn evidence in quasi-judicial hearings.

The applicant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police misconduct.

The Commission denied leave to appeal the interlocutory decision refusing to amend the charge, finding jurisdiction only extends to final orders.

The Commission found no leave was required to appeal the misconduct finding, as it proceeds as of right.

Finally, the Commission established a three-part test for granting a complainant leave to appeal a penalty decision under s. 70(4) of the Police Services Act, and granted leave on the basis that the underlying Charter breaches were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The applicant sought leave to appeal three decisions of a Hearing Officer regarding police discipline proceedings against the respondent officer.

The Commission dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the refusal to amend the charge, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals of interlocutory orders.

The Commission found that leave was not required to appeal the misconduct finding, as it could be appealed as of right.

Finally, the Commission granted leave to appeal the penalty decision (a reprimand), establishing a three-part test for granting leave under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act and finding that the Charter issues raised were of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The appellant police officer appealed an interlocutory ruling by a Hearing Officer in a disciplinary proceeding.

The Hearing Officer had required the appellant to elect whether to call evidence before ruling on a motion for non-suit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that its appellate jurisdiction under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act is restricted to final orders.

The Commission also provided guidance that motions for non-suit in administrative proceedings should follow the civil procedure requiring a defendant to elect whether to call evidence.

The appellant police officer was charged with discreditable conduct after voluntarily entering into a Peace Bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code to resolve allegations of sexual assault and criminal harassment.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty based solely on the Peace Bond and the underlying Information.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission held that entering into a Peace Bond is not an admission of guilt and does not constitute clear and convincing evidence of misconduct.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error of law, as a reasonable person would not view entering a Peace Bond to resolve unproven allegations as conduct likely to bring discredit upon the police service.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction overturned.

The appellant, a Staff Sergeant with the OPP, appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct for utilizing an OPP vehicle for personal use to visit a woman in the White Dog community.

The Commission found that while two of the alleged visits were incidental to legitimate police business, the third visit involved driving a police vehicle for strictly personal reasons.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the charge was proven and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct and a reprimand for failing to disclose a witness statement in a Crown Brief concerning a drinking and driving accident.

The appellant argued that he followed mandatory procedures which directed that only essential witnesses be included, and that his supervising officers approved the brief.

The provided text concludes after summarizing the appellant's submissions.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of admonition following a conviction for neglect of duty for failing to attend court as a witness.

The appellant argued that the Board of Commissioners erred in refusing a voir dire regarding his statement and in holding that Section 7 of the Charter did not apply to police discipline hearings.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that police discipline is an administrative internal process to which Section 7 of the Charter does not apply.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct for engaging in secondary employment as a painter without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued the regulation was discriminatory, violated common law, and infringed sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, relying on its previous decisions upholding the regulation, and confirmed the penalty of forfeiture of three days' vacation.

The appellant police officer was convicted of narcotics offences and subsequently dismissed from the police force.

He appealed his dismissal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing that the disciplinary hearing should have been adjourned pending his criminal appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and that suspension rather than termination was the appropriate penalty in the interim.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation to stay Police Act proceedings pending a criminal appeal, and holding that the police force should not be prejudiced by having to maintain a convicted officer on its complement.

The appellant police officer was convicted of insubordination for engaging in unsolicited religious conversation and distributing religious pamphlets to a member of the public, contrary to a direct order.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of forfeiture of two vacation days, arguing that the order violated his freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that Charter rights must be balanced and that an employer may lawfully require an employee to refrain from conducting certain religious activities during working hours.

The conviction and penalty were confirmed.

The appellant police officer was convicted of insubordination for disobeying an order to cease physical involvement in a secondary business (an outfitters store).

On appeal, the officer argued that he was merely counselled, not ordered, and challenged the authority to give such an order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the written memorandum and subsequent telephone conversation constituted a clear order to comply with the law regarding secondary employment.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of a reprimand was confirmed.