Other Tribunals - OCPC

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 respondent police service brought an unopposed motion for a sealing order regarding certain exhibits, transcripts, and factum references from a police disciplinary hearing.

The materials contained highly sensitive intelligence information obtained from a confidential informant, as well as personal and criminal histories of non-parties.

Applying both the common law test from Donovan v. Sherman Estate and section 2(2) of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, 2019, the Commission found that the privacy interests of the non-parties and the need to protect confidential informants outweighed the open court principle.

The motion for a sealing order was granted.

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 proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act misconduct charges against two officers due to delay.

The Hearing Officer had found the delay amounted to an abuse of process under the Blencoe framework.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the matter raised issues of significant importance to the policing profession and the community, particularly regarding the role of a public complainant's interests in a Blencoe analysis and the impact of parallel criminal proceedings on administrative delay.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a reprimand for the superintendent's role in ordering the unlawful arrest and detention of the complainants.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for such unprecedented and highly scrutinized Charter breaches was of significant importance to the policing profession and the community at large.

The complainants sought leave to appeal the penalty decision of a Hearing Officer regarding a police superintendent's misconduct during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The superintendent had been found guilty of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and discreditable conduct for ordering the 'kettling' and unlawful arrest of protestors, and was penalized with a forfeiture of 30 days off.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the appropriateness of the penalty for a senior commander in these unprecedented circumstances is of significant importance to the policing profession and the public.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for allegedly using unnecessary force during the G20 summit.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the Notice of Hearing served on the officer differed from the draft notice approved by the Police Services Board in a delay application under section 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's role under section 83(17) is limited to determining whether the delay in serving the notice was reasonable, not approving the specific wording of the charge.

The Commission revoked the stay and remitted the matter for a re-hearing.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision imposing the penalty of immediate dismissal following his guilty plea to a charge of use of unnecessary force.

The officer had assaulted a handcuffed, intoxicated prisoner in the back of a scout car after daring the prisoner to spit in his face.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors, including the officer's prior disciplinary record and the egregious nature of the assault.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's decision to be reasonable and confirmed the penalty of immediate dismissal.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for insubordination after discharging his firearm at a fleeing vehicle, contrary to a Toronto Police Service procedure.

The appellant argued he had a lawful excuse due to an honest, subjective belief that his life was in imminent danger.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that a lawful excuse requires both a subjective belief and objectively reasonable actions.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the appellant's actions were not objectively reasonable, as he had removed himself from the imminent threat before firing.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's appeal for failure to serve a Notice of Appeal within the thirty-day statutory period under the Police Services Act.

The complainant faxed the Notice of Appeal on the thirtieth day, but under section 96(2) of the Act, faxed documents are deemed received on the following day.

The Commission held that the appeal was served on the thirty-first day and that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit.

The appeal was dismissed as untimely.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by appearing to reverse the burden of proof, requiring the officer to prove he had reasonable and probable grounds.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to adequately analyze the officer's subjective belief and whether there was good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

Given the excessive delay of over five years, the Commission revoked the finding of misconduct rather than remitting the matter for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against four police officers for failing to make an approved screening device (ASD) demand following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Hearing Officer had ruled that the driver's admission of alcohol consumption was a legally compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act and could not be used to form reasonable suspicion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found this ruling unreasonable, as there was no evidence the driver subjectively believed he was legally compelled to report the accident.

The Commission revoked the dismissal for the two first-responding officers and remitted the matter for continuation, but confirmed the dismissal for the two later-arriving officers who could not have made a demand 'forthwith'.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that found a police officer not guilty of breach of confidence.

Before the written decision was released, the officer retired from the Ontario Provincial Police.

The retired officer brought a motion challenging the Commission's jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Commission granted the motion, finding that under the Police Services Act, it only has jurisdiction over active police officers.

Because the officer had retired, he was no longer a police officer as defined by the Act, and the Commission therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellant successfully appealed a hearing officer's decision, resulting in findings of misconduct against two police officers for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

This decision determines the appropriate penalty.

The Commission considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the officers' employment histories, and the element of provocation by the appellant.

Constable Parker, who initiated the arrest, was suspended without pay for 32 hours.

Constable Koscinski, who assisted, was ordered to forfeit 16 hours off.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision that found two police officers not guilty of misconduct for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

The Commission previously revoked the hearing officer's findings and substituted determinations of guilt.

In this penalty decision, the Commission considered the officers' employment histories, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the appellant's provocative behavior.

The Commission imposed a penalty of a 32-hour suspension without pay for the primary officer and a forfeiture of 16 hours off for the junior officer who assisted.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision clearing two police officers of misconduct.

The Commission previously revoked that decision and found the officers guilty of making an unlawful and unnecessary arrest and using unnecessary force against the appellant in a courtroom.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the seriousness of the misconduct against mitigating factors, including the officers' employment records and the appellant's provocative behaviour.

The Commission ordered the senior officer to be suspended without pay for four days (32 hours) and the junior officer to forfeit two days (16 hours) off.

The Towns of Meaford and Thornbury applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for approval to amalgamate their respective police services.

The Commission reviewed the proposed amalgamation agreement, which included provisions for a joint police services board, transfer of members, assets, liabilities, and budgeting.

The Commission found that the proposed amalgamation would provide adequate and effective policing to both communities, noting benefits such as 24-hour policing for Thornbury and a modern police facility.

The Commission approved the amalgamation effective November 1, 1997, subject to the requirement that appointments to the new board comply with the Police Services Act.

The Ottawa Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under section 39(4) of the Police Services Act to resolve a dispute with the City of Ottawa regarding the 1994 police budget.

The dispute centered on whether a 1993 budget surplus should be applied to Social Contract targets or used to cover retirement payouts.

The City brought a preliminary motion challenging the Commission's jurisdiction.

The Commission granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that its jurisdiction under section 39(4) is limited to determining the adequacy of policing resources and estimates, not resolving contractual or funding source disputes.

The Towns of Port Elgin and Southampton applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for approval to amalgamate their respective police services.

Following a comprehensive review process by a Steering Committee, the municipalities proposed a joint service with a shared budget, a single Chief of Police, and a combined Police Services Board.

The Commission found the proposal well-founded and supported by the community, though it noted that the Act does not authorize the creation of an interim board with decision-making authority.

The Commission approved the amalgamation effective January 4, 1995.

The Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under s. 39(4) of the Police Services Act to resolve a $50,000 budget shortfall.

The Board argued that previous budget cuts left no room for further reductions, citing increased costs for vehicle replacement and insurance premiums.

The Regional Municipality opposed the application, pointing to a high incidence of tax arrears and the need to be sensitive to property taxpayers' ability to pay.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the Board could operate within the budget approved by the Municipality, and suggested the Board review its vehicle replacement allocation.