Ontario Civilian Police Commission

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering his dismissal after he pleaded guilty to insubordination and discreditable conduct, including unauthorized CPIC queries, illegal drug use, and requesting a ticket be voided.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding a PTSD diagnosis.

The Commission dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, concluding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the dispositional factors and the severity of the misconduct.

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 police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct for carelessly causing damage to his police vehicle during a left-turn collision, and the subsequent penalty of forfeiting 16 hours.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct finding, concluding that the officer failed to ensure he could complete his turn safely.

However, the Commission allowed the penalty appeal, finding the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating the officer's failure to acknowledge guilt and the absence of Highway Traffic Act consequences as aggravating factors.

The penalty was reduced to the jointly submitted forfeiture of 8 hours.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of Discreditable Conduct under the Police Services Act Code of Conduct for using profanity towards a member of the public during a tense investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by equating the use of profanity with Discreditable Conduct absolutely, without applying the required objective test.

The Commission held that an objective test, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person in the community and considering the context of the situation, must be applied.

Given the tense and potentially dangerous circumstances of the call, the Commission concluded the single use of an expletive did not meet the objective test for Discreditable Conduct and revoked the finding.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding the respondent police officer not guilty of neglect of duty and deceit under the Police Services Act.

The appellant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair regarding new evidence (scratch notes) and the refusal to allow a witness to testify about GPS data.

The Commission found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant was provided the new evidence and the Hearing Officer properly exercised her gatekeeper function to exclude irrelevant testimony after the respondent admitted his error.

The Commission declined to re-examine the evidence, deferring to the Hearing Officer's factual findings, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after she pled guilty to insubordination and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The charges arose from unauthorized CPIC searches and the disclosure of confidential police information to a known drug dealer.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by dismissing motions for abuse of process, a fact finder, and an adjournment, and by failing to give sufficient weight to expert evidence regarding her alcoholism.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no errors in the Hearing Officer's procedural rulings or his weighing of the expert evidence.

The Commission concluded that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing charges of Discreditable Conduct against two police officers.

The charges arose from the officers' failure to administer a breath test to a driver involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident, despite the driver admitting to consuming one beer five hours earlier.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer reasonably assessed the officers' credibility and correctly applied the objective test for Discreditable Conduct.

The Commission confirmed the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the officers' actions, while based on an incorrect understanding of their authority, were not likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police service.

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 appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of four counts of misconduct (discreditable conduct, insubordination, and breach of confidence) and ordering his dismissal.

The misconduct related to his failure to report two separate kidnappings, conducting unauthorized CPIC queries, and disclosing confidential information.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the Hearing Officer's decisions regarding delay, admission of video link and transcript evidence, credibility assessments, or the finding that his actions constituted discreditable conduct.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a 12-month demotion imposed after being found guilty of discreditable conduct for giving inconsistent and contradictory evidence in a criminal trial.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by treating his refusal to accept responsibility as an aggravating factor and by failing to apply principles of progressive discipline and consistency of penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the Hearing Officer erred in characterizing the lack of remorse as an aggravating factor rather than the absence of a mitigating factor, it did not render the penalty unreasonable.

The Commission also held that the demotion was within the range of reasonable penalties and that progressive discipline is not required in every case.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the status of its interim order appointing an Administrator to oversee the Durham Regional Police Service and the Durham Regional Police Services Board.

Finding that a crisis of confidence and fear of reprisal continued to constitute an emergency within the Service, the Commission extended the Administrator's appointment until December 31, 2020, to ensure the ongoing investigation could be completed without interference.

The Corporation of the Town of Orangeville applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to abolish the Orangeville Police Service and transition to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission granted consent, finding that adequate and effective police services would be maintained and that all members had contractual severance agreements, with any future disputes to be referred to arbitration.

The appellant, a police officer, brought an appeal under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act.

Before the Commission rendered its decision, the parties advised that the appellant had retired from the respondent police service.

Consequently, the Commission determined it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter and quashed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay Police Services Act misconduct proceedings against two police officers for abuse of process due to delay.

The proceedings arose from an incident over eight years prior, and the Hearing Officer found the delay, largely attributable to the prosecution, was inexcusable and caused significant prejudice to the officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Blencoe test for abuse of process.

The Commission concluded the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

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 appellant police officer was found guilty of disciplinary offences and ordered dismissed.

He appealed to the Commission.

After the appeal was heard but before a decision was rendered, the appellant retired.

The Commission held that pursuant to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act, it lacks jurisdiction to continue with an appeal or render a decision once an appellant is no longer a police officer.

The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.