Human Rights - OCPC

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board to dismiss him due to disability under s. 47(2) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the appeal under s. 47(5) should proceed as a hearing de novo or an appeal on the record.

Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the Commission concluded that the legislature intended for a full evidentiary hearing to take place before the Board, and that the appeal to the Commission must proceed on the record of the Board's proceeding.

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

The appellant argued that the Notice of Hearing was inaccurate and that her hearing impairment prevented her from fully participating in the hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Notice of Hearing provided reasonable notice and that the Hearing Officer took sufficient steps to accommodate the appellant's hearing impairment, ensuring procedural fairness.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission issued an emergency order appointing an administrator to oversee the Thunder Bay Police Services Board.

Following a request from First Nations leaders, the Commission investigated the Board's failure to address systemic racism and the Indigenous community's concerns regarding police services.

The Executive Chair found that the Board failed to provide administrative guidance and lost the capacity to fulfill its public oversight role, constituting an emergency.

The order appoints Thomas J. Lockwood, Q.C. as Administrator for a one-year term to preside over Board meetings, ensure members receive training, and establish a suitable policy framework.

Constable Mulholland appealed the penalty imposed by a Hearing Officer for multiple counts of misconduct, including deceit, insubordination, discreditable conduct, and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a demotion with conditions, which the appellant argued was harsh and excessive given his diagnoses of PTSD and substance abuse.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the penalty factors, including the seriousness of the multiple acts of misconduct and the mitigating medical evidence, and that the penalty did not violate the duty to accommodate.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of resignation or dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to multiple counts of discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and insubordination.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in fact and failed to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate his generalized anxiety disorder and alcohol dependency.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision reasonable.

The Commission noted the appellant had previously been reinstated under a 'last chance' agreement for similar misconduct and failed to comply with its conditions, concluding the employer had fulfilled its duty to accommodate.

The appellant, a police officer with a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse, appealed a hearing officer's decision ordering him to resign or be dismissed after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct.

The charge arose from his criminal conviction for possessing marijuana while suspended for a previous incident of smoking marijuana at work.

The appellant argued the hearing officer failed to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate his disability and his subsequent rehabilitation.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer appropriately weighed the employer's accommodation efforts against the appellant's repeated criminal misconduct, history of deception, and the potential damage to the police service's reputation.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty of resignation or dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from his heavy marijuana use, which resulted in a criminal conviction for possession of a controlled substance.

The Appellant argued that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider his substance abuse disability, his rehabilitation efforts, and the Service's duty to accommodate.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the Service's accommodation efforts against the Appellant's repeated criminal misconduct, history of deception, and the potential damage to the Service's reputation.

The penalty was upheld as reasonable and just.

The appellant, an undercover police officer, developed a cocaine addiction and was criminally convicted of simple possession.

He pled guilty to two counts of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

At the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor and defence presented a joint submission proposing a 'last chance' agreement with strict conditions, including demotion and drug testing.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission and ordered the appellant to resign or be dismissed.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred by relying on speculative conclusions and failing to properly consider the employer's duty to accommodate the appellant's addiction.

The Commission varied the penalty to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant, a police officer with 16 years of service, appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer following his guilty plea to two counts of discreditable conduct related to cocaine possession and use.

The misconduct occurred while the appellant was working as an undercover drug operative and suffering from an addiction.

At the disciplinary hearing, the prosecutor and defence presented a joint submission proposing a 'last chance agreement' with strict conditions, including demotion and drug testing, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the appellant's addiction as a handicap requiring accommodation, relied on speculative conclusions unsupported by evidence, and imposed an unduly harsh penalty.

The Commission varied the penalty to reflect the joint submission.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding her guilty of misconduct for leaving her service firearm unattended in an open locker, for which she was ordered dismissed.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence that the locker was left unsecured.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty.

Relying on uncontradicted medical evidence that the appellant suffered from depression and stress-related cognitive impairments, the Commission found that the employer failed in its duty to accommodate her treatable mental disability.

The penalty of dismissal was reduced to a demotion to 4th Class Constable for a twelve-month period to allow for rehabilitation and supported supervision.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of 72 hours forfeiture of time off following a guilty plea to discreditable conduct for using profane, abusive, or insulting language related to sex toward a female colleague.

The Commission upheld the finding that the single incident constituted a poisoned environment and that the hearing officer appropriately considered the impact on the victim.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to 45 hours forfeiture, finding that the police service's management shared responsibility for allowing a workplace culture of inappropriate conversation without having a sexual harassment policy in place.

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 a conviction for discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary occupation (operating a sporting goods store) without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

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

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, relying on its previous decisions rejecting the same Charter arguments, and confirmed the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty of three forfeited vacation days for engaging in secondary employment without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to Section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued that the regulation was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission rejected the Charter arguments, relying on its previous decisions, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his involvement in secondary employment without the consent of the Commissioner, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued that section 61 was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty, relying on its previous decisions which rejected identical Charter challenges to the regulation.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary occupation (operating a farm feed store) without the Commissioner's consent, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

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

Relying on a previous decision involving the same arguments, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days.

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 discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary retail business without the consent of the Commissioner, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the business was a commercial venture extending beyond a hobby, and that the Commissioner reasonably exercised his discretion to deny consent.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's argument that the prohibition violated his rights under sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter, concluding that the limitation was reasonable and not discriminatory.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the termination of his employment by the Board of Commissioners of Police.

The termination was based on a physical disability—an inherited blood clotting disorder requiring anti-coagulant medication—which placed him at a high risk of fatal hemorrhage if he sustained trauma.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's preliminary motion to introduce new evidence, finding it was available prior to the initial hearing.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the termination, concluding that the medical evidence supported the finding that the appellant was incapable of performing his duties safely, and that the Board could not condone the assumption of such a high risk of harm.