Human Rights - OCPC

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of 32 hours forfeiture.

The officer had submitted profane and insulting comments criticizing equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives to an anonymous virtual suggestion box.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer reasonably concluded the comments were not protected by case-by-case privilege and the proceedings were not an abuse of process.

The Commission also held that the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the officer's freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, as the penalty targeted the abusive language rather than the expression of dissent.

The appellant, a police officer on leave with PTSD, was found guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for refusing to attend interviews, harassing another officer, and making numerous offensive and derogatory posts about the police service on Twitter.

The Hearing Officer ordered her dismissal.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decisions to deny the appellant's requests for an indefinite adjournment and to proceed in absentia.

The Commission found no procedural unfairness and upheld the findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The Commission also conducted a Doré analysis and concluded that the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the appellant's Charter right to freedom of expression.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his discharge under s. 47(2) of the Police Services Act to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Waterloo Police Association (WRPA) and the Police Association of Ontario (PAO) brought motions to intervene in the appeal, and the Chief of Police sought to confirm his status as a respondent.

The Commission granted intervenor status to the PAO as amicus and to the WRPA with participatory rights to be determined.

The Commission also confirmed the Chief of Police as a respondent on the appeal, noting his full participation in the proceeding below, without deciding whether his participation below was proper.

The Appellant, a Staff Sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from his role as the lead investigator into the sudden death of an Indigenous man, where he prematurely concluded the death was non-criminal and failed to conduct a basic investigation.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable, including the finding that the Appellant's deficient investigation was rooted in racial bias and stereotypes.

The appeal was dismissed and the findings and penalty were confirmed.

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 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.