Other Tribunals - OCPC

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of misconduct for allegedly using unnecessary force by kicking a handcuffed suspect.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the evidence and found that the Hearing Officer failed to make a definitive finding on whether the appellant actually kicked the suspect as alleged in the Statement of Particulars.

Concluding that the evidence did not meet the required standard of clear and convincing proof, the Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision and dismissed the charge.

The appellant police officers appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from a warrantless entry into a tenant's private residence while responding to a landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid rent.

The appellants argued the Hearing Officer failed to consider their good faith and intentions.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably applied an objective test based on the reasonable expectations of the public, and correctly concluded that the officers' unauthorized entry constituted a trespass that would bring discredit to the police service.

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

The charge arose after the respondent locked the appellant in an interview room while he was providing a witness statement regarding a complaint he had made.

The appellant alleged he was unlawfully detained and that the hearing officer was biased.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias and concluding that the hearing officer's findings of fact, credibility assessments, and application of the objective test for discreditable conduct were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant, a Toronto police officer, appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that found the respondent officer not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant alleged he was unlawfully detained when the respondent locked him in an interview room while he provided a witness statement, and that the Hearing Officer was biased because he belonged to the same police service as the respondent.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias as the appellant failed to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity and provided no evidence of actual bias.

The Commission also upheld the Hearing Officer's findings that there was no unlawful detention, as there was no compulsion or coercion, and that locking the door was a reasonable security measure.

The appellant, a police officer with 31 years of unblemished service, appealed a penalty of 40 hours forfeiture imposed by a Hearing Officer for discreditable conduct.

The officer had pled guilty to failing to report an off-duty minor motor vehicle accident.

The parties had presented a joint submission recommending a 20-hour forfeiture, which the Hearing Officer rejected in favour of a harsher penalty.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred by relying on information not in evidence, mischaracterizing the misconduct by referencing an abandoned Criminal Code charge, and failing to provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the joint submission.

The penalty was varied to the jointly recommended 20 hours.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose from his investigation of a stolen vehicle and its occupants, where he failed to properly search, inventory, and determine ownership of property found in the vehicle, and improperly released property to a suspect.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the evidence and that the appellant, as the lead investigator, was responsible for ensuring a proper investigation was conducted.

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act for using unnecessary force and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer found that the appellant had pepper-sprayed a handcuffed prisoner in the back of a police cruiser and subsequently failed to document the use of force in his arrest report or a mandatory Use of Force Report.

On appeal, the Commission held that the Hearing Officer's credibility findings and conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission found no manifest error in the determination that the failure to report the use of pepper spray was deliberate and constituted neglect of duty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing his motion to quash a disciplinary charge for delay.

The appellant had subsequently pled guilty to the charge and served the penalty.

The Commission held that the appeal was not moot, but that the appellant had waived his right to appeal by pleading guilty without reserving his right to challenge jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the Commission found that the six-month limitation period under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act commenced when investigators obtained independent witness statements, providing a sufficient body of factual information to create a reasonable belief of misconduct.

As the Notice of Hearing was served within six months of that date, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt on two counts of discreditable conduct and one count of insubordination, as well as the penalty imposed for one of the discreditable conduct counts.

The charges arose from a traffic stop where the officer allegedly made a rude comment to a motorist and subsequently issued a questionable traffic ticket, and later failed to attend court for the ticket.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the findings of guilt, concluding they were not void of evidentiary foundation.

However, the Commission found the penalty of forfeiture of five days off for issuing the ticket to be excessive given the officer's unblemished record, and reduced it to three days off.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Code of Conduct.

The charge arose from his supervision of a response to a domestic dispute where allegations of assault and threats were made but not properly investigated.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer set unrealistic expectations and that the primary investigating officer was responsible for the investigation's shortcomings.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that as the senior officer on scene, the appellant had a duty to supervise and ensure that domestic violence policies were followed.

The Hearing Officer's conclusion that the appellant neglected his supervisory duties was supported by the evidence.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of immediate dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to four counts of misconduct, including neglect of duty, deceit, and two counts of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved engaging in sexual activity with members of the public while on duty and in uniform, as well as leaving a scheduled training seminar to meet a woman and subsequently falsifying duty reports.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly considered the relevant factors including the officer's potential for rehabilitation, and imposed a penalty consistent with similar infractions.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing a charge of misconduct against the respondent police officer for making an unlawful arrest.

The Commission previously revoked the dismissal and substituted a finding of guilt, noting the officer misunderstood the law regarding the revocation of an implied licence to knock.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the seriousness of the misconduct against the officer's junior status, his mistaken but good faith belief in the lawfulness of his actions, and his subsequent positive performance.

The Commission ordered the officer to participate in a critical incident debrief to help incorporate the findings into training procedures and issued a formal reprimand.

The appellant police officer appealed an interlocutory decision of a Hearing Officer requiring him to elect whether to call evidence before ruling on a motion for non-suit in a disciplinary hearing.

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

The Commission also provided guidance that the procedure for motions for non-suit in administrative proceedings conforms with civil court practice, requiring the defendant to elect whether to call evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and corrupt practice relating to the theft of $650 in evidence money and an assault on a civilian.

The civilian had secretly recorded a conversation in which the appellant admitted to taking the money.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer had a clear and convincing evidentiary foundation to believe the civilian's testimony and the recorded admissions over the appellant's evasive explanations.

The appellant appealed a decision finding Constable Kelly not guilty of neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The appellant alleged that Constable Kelly failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into a domestic dispute because he was an acquaintance of the appellant's ex-wife's new partner.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding no manifest error in the conclusion that Constable Kelly's actions did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of neglect of duty, and that the threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias was not met.

The appellant appealed a decision finding a police officer not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged the officer failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into a domestic dispute, citing the officer's prior acquaintance with a witness and failure to interview a nanny.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, concluding there was no manifest error in finding the officer's actions did not constitute neglect of duty and that the threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias was not met.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of insubordination and discreditable conduct against two police officers.

The charges arose from a confrontation between the appellant and the officers, who were in plainclothes executing a search warrant in the appellant's apartment building.

The appellant alleged racial profiling and bias by the Hearing Officer.

The Commission dismissed a motion by the respondents to introduce fresh evidence explaining discrepancies between the Hearing Officer's oral and written decisions.

Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and concluding that the Hearing Officer's conduct did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt on two counts of neglect of duty for allegedly failing to take a report and make notes regarding a civilian complaint.

The Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, finding that the prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence linking the appellant to the incident.

The only evidence presented was that the appellant's notebook contained no entries and she submitted no report, but there was no direct evidence that she was assigned to the call, involved in the call, or had any contact with the complainant.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary hearing decision finding her guilty of two counts of neglect of duty for allegedly failing to submit an occurrence report and failing to make notebook entries regarding a civilian complaint.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, finding that the prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence linking the officer to the incident or the complainant.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest for public intoxication, and the resulting penalty of a 12-day suspension.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the finding of misconduct, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias regarding the Hearing Officer's subsequent employment at OCCPS, and concluding the misconduct finding was supported by evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred by considering post-offence disciplinary matters.

The penalty was reduced to a 4-day suspension.