Employment and Labour Law - OCPC

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion imposed after he pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct, insubordination, and unlawful use of force against an Indigenous civilian.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by failing to give appropriate weight to medical evidence of his PTSD and rehabilitation, failing to consider the civilian's lack of complaint, and failing to apply the principle of progressive discipline.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the dispositional factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage to the reputation of the police service, in determining that demotion was the appropriate penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct for allegedly making racist and sexually suggestive comments to a civilian employee during a ride-along.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing, finding that the hearing officer made fundamental errors in his credibility analysis.

Specifically, the hearing officer improperly shifted the burden of proof to the appellant by requiring him to explain why the complainant would fabricate the allegations, and unreasonably failed to consider the impact of subsequent friendly text messages between the parties on the complainant's credibility.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the findings of guilt for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and insubordination, as well as the penalty of dismissal imposed by a hearing officer.

The misconduct involved unauthorized police database queries of individuals connected to his brother's criminal investigation, failure to disclose personal connections to persons of interest in a firearms investigation, and insubordination during a compelled interview.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's factual conclusions reasonable, the admission of evidence from a Criminal Code production order lawful, and the penalty of dismissal appropriate given the serious and repeated nature of the misconduct.

The applicant police officer pled guilty to misconduct and was demoted.

He subsequently went on extended sick leave, which impacted the financial consequences of his penalty.

After an arbitrator dismissed his grievance regarding the penalty's implementation, the applicant brought a motion under section 78 of the Police Services Act asking the Commission to vary the penalty or return it to the Hearing Officer.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 78 to revisit a penalty due to changed circumstances, and that the applicant was barred from relitigating the issue by the doctrine of issue estoppel.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of two counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of demotion from First Class to Fourth Class Constable.

The charges arose from an off-duty domestic altercation where the appellant pushed his estranged wife.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably admitted and weighed hearsay evidence, made reasonable findings of fact supported by the appellant's own admissions, and appropriately applied the dispositional factors.

The penalty of demotion, while severe, was found to be within the reasonable range of outcomes.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved operating a police vehicle with an expired licence, failing to immediately report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic outside his jurisdiction, and deceiving his supervisor about the incident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable and the penalty of dismissal proportionate, particularly given the appellant's recent prior discipline resulting in a demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision ordering his dismissal for discreditable conduct and insubordination, including an impaired driving incident while on duty.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding his PTSD and alcohol addiction, and argued the hearing officer erred by proceeding in his absence and failing to properly weigh his mental health issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence as it could have been obtained with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding the hearing officer reasonably weighed the disposition factors and that the seriousness of the misconduct justified dismissal despite the appellant's mental health conditions.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct involved the appellant interfering in an impaired driving investigation of a wedding guest and subsequently lying about his involvement.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by not recusing himself for bias, refusing to order disclosure of prosecution witness notes, and misapprehending voice identification evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, upholding the claim of litigation privilege over the witness notes, and concluding the Hearing Officer's findings of guilt were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of Discreditable Conduct and Deceit, and the subsequent penalty of termination.

The misconduct involved submitting numerous false health benefit claims for services allegedly provided by a non-existent massage therapist.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments of the defence witnesses were reasonable and that she did not improperly shift the burden of proof.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of termination, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the serious impact on the police service's reputation and the deliberate, repeated nature of the deceit.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering his dismissal after he pleaded guilty to insubordination and discreditable conduct, including unauthorized CPIC queries, illegal drug use, and requesting a ticket be voided.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding a PTSD diagnosis.

The Commission dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, concluding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the dispositional factors and the severity of the misconduct.

The appellant, a police inspector, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of Discreditable Conduct for using discriminatory and insulting language during a recruitment interview with a South Asian candidate.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer applied the wrong legal test, erred in credibility assessments, and reversed the burden of proof.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer correctly applied an objective test to determine the language was offensive to community standards, properly assessed credibility, and correctly applied the standard of clear, convincing, and weighty evidence.

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 Board's oversight capacity.

Following a preliminary review, the Commission found a profound crisis of confidence, widespread fear of retaliatory discipline, and a poisoned work environment.

Determining that this crisis constituted an emergency that could hamper the investigation and negatively affect policing, the Executive Chair ordered the appointment of an Administrator under sections 23(1) and 24(1) of the Police Services Act to oversee promotions, hiring, and internal disciplinary processes.

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 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 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, an undercover police officer, appealed a disciplinary penalty of dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct related to cocaine possession and use.

The Hearing Officer had rejected a joint submission on penalty that proposed a 'last chance' agreement involving demotion and strict conditions, citing concerns about the officer's credibility and the source of the drugs.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the officer's cocaine addiction as a handicap requiring accommodation, and relied on speculative conclusions unsupported by evidence.

The penalty was varied to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of immediate dismissal.

The charges related to the misappropriation of public funds through the misuse of police-issued credit cards for personal motorcycle repairs, submitting false receipts for vehicle repairs, and failing to account for cash requisitioned for an informant.

The Commission upheld the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, noting the serious breach of public trust, lack of restitution, and absence of significant mitigating factors.

The appellant police officer was convicted of two counts of insubordination for failing to attend court and allowing secondary employment to interfere with his duties.

The officer had a scheduling conflict and submitted a leave form, which was approved by his supervisors despite his scheduled court appearance.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services allowed the appeal, finding that the officer held an honest belief that he was excused from attending court, which constituted a lawful excuse.

The convictions were overturned.