Other Tribunals - OCPC

The appellant, a police superintendent acting as Incident Commander during the 2010 G20 Summit, appealed convictions for professional misconduct relating to the mass arrests of protestors at the Novotel Hotel and the intersection of Queen and Spadina.

The Hearing Officer found the arrests were unlawful and constituted an unnecessary exercise of authority, and that the appellant committed discreditable conduct by leaving detainees in inclement weather.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the Hearing Officer correctly applied the law regarding reasonable and probable grounds and the ancillary powers doctrine.

On the cross-appeals regarding penalty, the Commission found the original penalties (a reprimand and forfeiture of 10 days off) were unreasonable given the severity of the Charter breaches.

The Commission varied the penalties to the forfeiture of 20 days off for each of the two unlawful arrest convictions, to be served consecutively with the 20 days off forfeited for discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of Daryl Bennett, Mayor of Peterborough and member of the Peterborough-Lakefield Police Services Board.

The Commission investigated 11 allegations of misconduct, including leaking confidential personnel complaints, attempting to negotiate the police budget directly with the Chief, publicly criticizing the Chief's operational decisions, and making disparaging remarks about the Board and the Commission.

The Commission found that all 11 allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities.

The Commission rejected the Mayor's arguments that his role as Mayor superseded his obligations as a Board member and that his Charter rights to free expression shielded him from the Code of Conduct.

The Commission concluded that Mayor Bennett breached sections 2, 5, 6, 8, and 13 of the Code of Conduct and was guilty of misconduct.

Following a finding of misconduct against Greg Oliver, a member and former Chair of the Stirling-Rawdon Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a penalty hearing.

The Commission found that Oliver engaged in a deliberate and persistent course of conduct that discredited and compromised the integrity of the Board and the police service, particularly through his antagonistic and disrespectful treatment of the Chief of Police.

Applying the Gardner penalty assessment factors, the Commission concluded that Oliver's lack of remorse, failure to heed advice, and fundamental misunderstanding of his role as a public steward warranted the most severe penalty.

Oliver was ordered removed from the Board.

At the beginning of an appeal hearing, the appellant police officer filed a second Notice of Appeal.

After discussion with counsel, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission ordered that the two appeals be heard together pursuant to Rule 3.3 of its Rules of Practice.

The Commission set a schedule for the delivery of factums, records, and supporting materials, and scheduled the joint hearing.

The applicant police services board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to terminate 13 civilian communications employees in order to contract out dispatch and 911 services to another municipal police service.

The applicant cited severe financial difficulties and outdated equipment as reasons for the closure of its own communications centre.

The Commission held a public meeting and reviewed the proposal, finding that the contracted police service could provide adequate and effective policing communications.

As the applicant and the police association had already reached a severance agreement for the affected employees, the Commission granted consent to the reduction.

During a hearing into the conduct of a police services board member, the Commission sought to introduce three new factual matters as particulars of an existing allegation of making disparaging remarks.

The member brought a motion to declare the new matters inadmissible, arguing they were new allegations that amounted to an abuse of process and a breach of natural justice because they were raised after the hearing had commenced.

The Panel dismissed the motion, finding that the new matters were merely additional particulars that did not require amending the Notice of Hearing, and that the Commission had provided full disclosure with ample time for the member to prepare a response.

The appellant, a public complainant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for alleged unauthorized database searches.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the appellant's initial e-mail complaint was unsigned, failing to meet the mandatory requirements of s. 57(2) of the Police Services Act, and that the officer had already been informally disciplined for the conduct.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by considering expunged disciplinary records and raised new grounds including issue estoppel.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded the complaint was invalid for lack of a signature and properly considered oral testimony regarding the prior discipline.

The Commission also held it lacked jurisdiction to hear new grounds of appeal filed beyond the statutory time limit.

The appellant filed a complaint against a police officer for conducting unlawful CPIC searches.

The police service attempted to resolve the matter informally without the appellant's consent, contrary to the Police Services Act.

At the disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer quashed the charges against the officer, citing the criminal law principle of double jeopardy because the officer had already been counselled.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the informal resolution was a legal nullity due to lack of consent, that double jeopardy does not apply to administrative employment discipline, and that the Hearing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons.

The matter was remitted for a hearing.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct for stealing gas and supplies from the detachment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer made significant errors by failing to consider substantial mitigating character evidence and the appellant's successful rehabilitation for PTSD and alcoholism.

The penalty was varied to a demotion to fourth-class constable with strict conditions for ongoing psychological monitoring.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

The officer had been found guilty of failing to ensure a subpoenaed witness remained at court to testify in a careless driving prosecution, resulting in the charge being dismissed.

On appeal, the officer argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended the evidence and erred in assessing the credibility of the witness over the conflicting testimony of a court officer and the Crown Prosecutor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable and not void of evidentiary foundation.

The penalty of a 3-day suspension without pay was also upheld.

The applicant police officer brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to comply with the 30-day time limit under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant filed his notice of appeal over 60 days after receiving the hearing officer's decision staying the disciplinary proceedings.

The Commission held that the 30-day statutory time limit is mandatory and cannot be extended under the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a disciplinary penalty on the basis that the notice of appeal was filed 11 days after the 30-day statutory deadline.

The appellant did not oppose the motion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that section 70(1) of the Police Services Act imposes a strict 30-day time limit and that the 1997 amendments to the Act removed the Commission's discretion to extend the time for filing appeals.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Constable Pigeau appealed a finding of guilt for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and the resulting penalty of a loss of 16 hours off and directed training.

The misconduct arose from an incident where the officer made physical contact with a pedestrian he suspected of public intoxication, leading to an altercation and an unnecessary arrest.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upheld the finding of misconduct, applying a reasonableness standard of review and finding that the officer lacked legal justification for the physical contact.

However, the Commission found the penalty to be harsh and excessive, varying it to a reprimand and a requirement to attend refresher training on powers of arrest.

The appellant, a member of the public, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police constable not guilty of misconduct for an allegedly unlawful or unnecessary arrest.

The appellant had been stopped for an expired license plate and was subsequently arrested for "about to assault" after exiting his vehicle.

The Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's assessment of credibility and findings of fact.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the arrest was lawful and necessary was reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence, given the officer's perception of threat cues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding and penalty but failed to serve the complainant, who was a party to the original proceedings, with the Notice of Appeal or related materials.

The Commission held that the complainant is a party to the appeal and must be served.

To protect the complainant's rights without unduly prejudicing the appellant for counsel's oversight, the Commission ordered the appellant and respondent police service to serve the complainant within 21 days and adjourned the appeal.

The York Regional Police Service brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the basis that his notice of appeal was filed outside the 30-day statutory limitation period under s. 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Commission found that the appeal period commenced when the sentencing decision was served, not the earlier finding of guilt.

However, because the notice of appeal was served by facsimile on the final day of the limitation period, it was deemed received the following day under s. 77(3) of the Act.

The Commission held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit and granted the motion to dismiss the appeal.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory limitation period under subsection 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant's notice of appeal was served via facsimile on the final day of the limitation period, which under subsection 77(3) deemed it received the following day, making it one day late.

The Commission held that the 30-day appeal period commences after the sentencing decision is served, not the finding of guilt.

However, because the notice was deemed served one day late, and the Commission lacks inherent jurisdiction to extend statutory time limits, the motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

While off duty, the appellant was stopped and found to be driving with an expired validation tag, an expired driver's licence, and an expired insurance certificate.

The appellant argued that he should be treated like any other citizen for regulatory offences and that discreditable conduct should be reserved for more serious issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the public expects police officers to adhere to the laws they enforce, and driving with multiple expired documents fell below that standard.

The appellant police sergeant appealed a conviction for neglect of duty and a penalty of four days' lost pay.

The charge arose from his failure to place himself on duty and take charge of a search and rescue operation for three missing boaters while he was the on-call supervisor.

The Commission found that the Canadian Coast Guard had jurisdiction over the search and that the appellant's physical presence would not have altered the tragic outcome.

The Commission concluded that the appellant did not neglect his duty and quashed the conviction and penalty.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and penalty of forfeiture of two vacation days for a breach of confidence.

The officer had queried the Canadian Police Information Centre and warned his brother, a lawyer, that a client was thought to be violent and dangerous.

The Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, rejecting arguments regarding non-disclosure of unedited documents and the sufficiency of evidence.

However, finding the breach to be technical and understandable, the Commission reduced the penalty to a reprimand.