Employment and Labour Law - OCPC

The Wikwemikong Tribal Police Service brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by a First Nations Constable from a finding of discreditable conduct.

The moving party argued that the Ontario Civilian Police Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because First Nations Constables are explicitly excluded from the definition of 'police officer' under the Police Services Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that its statutory authority to hear appeals under section 87 of the Act applies only to police officers and complainants.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The appellant, a Detective Sergeant with the Ontario Provincial Police, appealed a penalty imposed following a finding of discreditable conduct.

The appellant had pled guilty to impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample after crashing an unmarked police cruiser while off duty.

The hearing officer imposed a two-year demotion to first-class constable, after which the appellant would have to reapply for promotion.

The Commission found that while the two-year demotion was within a reasonable range, the requirement to reapply for promotion was unduly harsh given the appellant's exemplary 22-year record, the personal tragedies that contributed to the incident, and his subsequent rehabilitation efforts.

The penalty was varied to allow automatic reinstatement to the rank of Detective Sergeant after the two-year demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of nine days' forfeiture of pay imposed after he pleaded guilty to insubordination under the Police Services Act for improperly accessing CPIC information and releasing it to his father.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer erred procedurally by going beyond the agreed statement of facts and by receiving unsworn victim impact statements from the complainant and his wife.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was within the appropriate range and that the Hearing Officer had the authority under section 15 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act to receive the statements, although the Commission noted that evidence should normally be taken under oath.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making numerous harassing phone calls to a colleague.

The appellant argued the calls were accidentally made by his cell phone's speed dial function.

The Hearing Officer rejected the accidental activation defence and found the calls were intentional.

On appeal, the Commission held that its role was restricted to determining if the decision lacked evidentiary foundation or contained a manifest error in principle.

Finding neither, the Commission deferred to the Hearing Officer and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct and penalized with a forfeiture of five days off after a confrontation at a retail store.

The officer became verbally abusive and engaged in a physical altercation with security after the store refused to accept a 100-dollar bill.

On appeal, the Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence despite minor inconsistencies in witness testimony.

The penalty was also upheld as appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The appellant police officer was charged with criminal harassment and sexual assault following a complaint by his former partner.

The criminal charges were withdrawn after the appellant agreed to enter into a Peace Bond under s. 810 of the Criminal Code.

Subsequently, the appellant was charged with discreditable conduct under the Code of Conduct for entering into the Peace Bond.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty based solely on the Information, the Recognizance, and the transcript of the s. 810 proceedings.

On appeal, the Commission held that voluntarily entering into a Peace Bond does not, in itself, constitute clear and convincing evidence of discreditable conduct.

The Commission noted that a Peace Bond is a preventative measure, not a punishment for past conduct, and the appellant had explicitly denied the underlying allegations.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was overturned.

The appellant police officer was convicted of neglect of duty for leaving his assigned patrol area without permission or sufficient cause.

He appealed the conviction, arguing he had sufficient cause because he accompanied another officer to a violent domestic call outside his area.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that even if his attendance was justified, he had adequate opportunity to notify control via radio and failed to do so, which vitiated his defence of sufficient cause.

The parties applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to reconsider and clarify a previous appeal decision that quashed a police officer's dismissal and substituted a demotion.

The parties sought clarification on the effective date of the demotion.

The Commission declined to conduct a hearing to interpret its previous decision, finding that the decision was clear and unambiguous, and that the effective date of the penalty was a question of law to be determined by the courts, though it noted its understanding that the effective date would be the date of the original penalty.

The appellant, a police constable, was convicted of a disciplinary offence for refusing a lawful order to patrol outside the Morgentaler Clinic, citing his religious beliefs against abortion.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the order to keep the peace did not violate his Charter rights or constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code, as a constable's duty to preserve the peace must be performed impartially regardless of personal conscience.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, reducing it to a demotion in rank, noting the appellant's good service record and his undertaking to obey lawful orders in the future.

The appellant, a First Class Constable, appealed a decision of the Board of Commissioners of Police discharging him due to a purported mental disability.

The appellant had suffered a series of jaw injuries and experienced fear and anxiety about potential reinjury.

The Commission found that under Section 27(e) of Regulation 791, a discharge for mental disability must be supported by the evidence of two legally qualified medical practitioners.

The medical evidence presented did not support a finding of mental disability, as both doctors indicated his fear was a normal and justified reaction to his previous trauma.

The Commission quashed the discharge and ordered the appellant reinstated.

The Commission also noted that under the Human Rights Code, the employer bears the onus of establishing that the appellant's physical disability could not be accommodated without undue hardship.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty of dismissal from the force for discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from an off-duty incident where the appellant, while intoxicated and bearing a black eye, attempted to cash a post-dated police cheque at a bank, used profanity when refused, and attempted to rip up the cheque.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found no error in the original hearing or the subsequent appeal to the Board of Commissioners of Police.

Given the incident and the appellant's long list of previous offences, the Commission affirmed the conviction and the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed her conviction for neglect of duty after a prisoner escaped from her custody.

The appellant was one of three officers at the scene of an arrest where four individuals were taken into custody.

While the prisoners were outside, one escaped into the bush.

The appellant, who was closest to the escaping prisoner, failed to immediately pursue him or notify another officer who was leaving the scene.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the escape of a secured prisoner raised a reasonable assumption of carelessness, compounded by the appellant's failure to seek assistance.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and penalty of an admonishment were confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of nine days off for neglect of duty.

The officer had left his assigned post at a bank stake-out to go to a nearby store, during which time an attempted robbery occurred.

The Commission found that while the officer had a good record and was highly regarded, the penalty was appropriate given the potential consequences of his absence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and punishment for a minor charge of deceit under the Police Act.

The charge arose from an inaccurate entry in his daily journal regarding a roadside breath test.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that intent is a necessary ingredient for a charge of deceit, and the evidence established that the appellant did not intend to deceive anyone.

The appellant, a Corporal and drum-major of the OPP Pipes and Drums Band, appealed his conviction for deceit and subsequent reduction in rank to Constable.

He had initialled overtime forms for two band members, knowing the hours claimed did not reflect actual travel time but rather normal driving time.

The Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the appellant knowingly signed false statements in official documents and his altruistic motives were irrelevant to liability.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against sentence, varying the punishment from a reduction in rank to the forfeiture of 20 days of leave, noting his previously unimpeachable character and the lax enforcement of overtime rules.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed his conviction and penalty of reduction in rank to Police Constable, First Class for discreditable conduct.

The charge arose after the appellant took up residence with the mother of a victim in an incest case he was investigating, prior to the disposal of the criminal charges against the victim's father.

The appellant withdrew the appeal against conviction but argued the penalty was harsh because his relationship did not prejudice the criminal case or cause adverse public reaction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the likelihood of discredit must be viewed in advance by a reasonable person, and the penalty was commensurate with the likely discredit.

The appellant police constable appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct under the Police Act.

The charge was based on his criminal conviction for corruptly attempting to obtain a valuable consideration.

The appellant argued that the Police Act proceedings were premature because his criminal conviction was under appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that a lower court's judgment has implications even while under appeal, and that Police Act proceedings need not await the exhaustion of all criminal appeal avenues.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of a two-rank demotion for discreditable conduct.

The conviction was based on a criminal conviction for obstructing justice, arising from the officer's attempt to dissuade other officers from investigating an illegal stag party he helped organize.

The appellant argued the Presiding Officer gave too much weight to the agreed statement of facts from the criminal trial and not enough to his own testimony.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Presiding Officer properly considered the evidence and that the serious nature of the misconduct warranted the penalty imposed.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct related to engaging in an outside occupation without the Chief of Police's consent.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine witnesses about other officers engaging in outside employment.

The Commission held that such evidence was relevant to potential defenses of implied consent, discriminatory treatment, or unfair procedure.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for Discreditable Conduct (based on a criminal conviction for theft under $200) and the penalty of compulsory resignation.

He argued the charge sheet was a nullity due to the involvement of a Disciplinary Committee, improper amendments, and pre-charge delay violating the Charter and the Provincial Offences Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, that the Provincial Offences Act limitation periods do not apply to Police Act disciplinary hearings, and that the penalty was justified given the premeditation and concealment involved in the theft.