Ontario Civilian Police Commission

The appellant, a police constable, appealed a decision of the regional board of commissioners of police upholding his dismissal from the force.

The appellant argued that the Chief of Police's conduct during the initial hearing raised a reasonable apprehension of bias, citing the Chief's acquaintance with the appellant's mother-in-law, the handling of a missing notebook, and an alleged statement in the transcript that there would be 'no use of appeal.' The Commission found no evidence of bias, accepted an affidavit correcting the transcript error, and held that the missing notebook was not crucial evidence.

The Commission also granted a motion to amend an incorrect date on the charge sheet, finding no prejudice to the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing an order from a Staff Sergeant to work overtime at the end of his shift.

The appellant argued that the Staff Sergeant only had authority to ask for volunteers or to order off-duty officers in an emergency.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the rules and regulations provided lawful authority for a superior officer to order an officer to work overtime when their services are deemed necessary.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing to obey an order to trim his moustache to comply with personal appearance regulations.

The appellant argued the regulation was unlawful, discriminatorily enforced, and that his reassignment to menial tasks prior to the hearing constituted double jeopardy.

The majority of the Commission dismissed the appeal.

The dissenting member would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the appellant's reassignment to menial tasks amounted to punishment prior to formal conviction, thus constituting double jeopardy.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for insubordination after refusing an order to trim his moustache to comply with the force's personal appearance regulations.

The appellant argued the regulation was unlawful, discriminatorily enforced, and that his reassignment to menial tasks prior to the hearing constituted double jeopardy.

The majority of the Commission dismissed the appeal.

In dissenting reasons, one member found that the appellant's reassignment to menial tasks amounted to punishment before formal conviction and would have allowed the appeal on the ground of double jeopardy.

The applicants, two police officers, applied to quash disciplinary charges against them under the Police Act, arguing undue delay under Regulation 791 and Section 11(b) of the Charter.

The delay was primarily due to the standard practice of postponing disciplinary proceedings until related criminal charges were resolved.

The Commission found no undue delay, noting that the postponement is often in the officers' best interest and that recent delays were due to intervening court motions.

The application was dismissed without prejudice.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for neglect of duty and the penalty of forfeiture of two days' pay.

The officer had failed to attend court as a witness after reporting sick, without informing his supervisor of his court commitment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that officers have a duty to communicate their inability to attend court to the proper person when reporting sick.

However, due to the unusual nature of the charge, the Commission reduced the penalty to the forfeiture of one day's leave.

The Arnprior Police Association applied to determine the status of a civilian clerk-typist employed by the Town of Arnprior Police.

The Town conceded she was a member of the police force but argued she was employed in a confidential capacity and should be excluded from the Association as a senior officer.

The Commission found insufficient evidence of a confidential capacity and noted that no senior officers association existed in the force as required by section 30(2) of the Police Act.

The application was allowed, confirming the Association's entitlement to bargain on the employee's behalf.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed convictions for insubordination arising from three exchanges with a superior officer.

The first charge had been dismissed at trial.

On appeal, the Commission allowed the appeal on the second charge, finding the evidence unclear as to when the disobedience occurred since the superior had acquiesced to the appellant's request for more time.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on the third charge, finding that the appellant's manner of speaking to his superior, which included profanity and complaints about being put in a difficult position, was insolent, rebellious, and disrespectful.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for damage to equipment under the Police Act after losing control of his cruiser during a high-speed pursuit and striking a hydro pole.

He argued that the evidence did not support a finding of carelessness and that the charge was void because no written complaint was proven at trial.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the facts of the accident alone were sufficient to establish carelessness in the absence of an explanation at trial.

The Commission also held that the appellant's failure to demand production of the written complaint at the inception of the trial constituted an acceptance of the trial officer's jurisdiction.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Board of Commissioners of Police applied to the Ontario Police Commission to determine the status of its Chief Clerk, a civilian member, as a senior officer.

The Police Association opposed the application, arguing the position was within the bargaining unit.

The Commission found that the Chief Clerk possessed confidential budget and salary information and participated in in-camera meetings regarding negotiation strategy.

Consequently, the Commission determined the position was of a 'confidential capacity' and granted the application to classify the Chief Clerk as a senior officer.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of dangerous driving following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

He was subsequently charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Act and sentenced to resign or be summarily dismissed.

On appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, the appellant argued that the charge sheet was a nullity because it was signed by an officer who was not properly designated under the Police Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that the power to sign the charge sheet could not be delegated as a purely administrative task, and dismissed the charge.

In the alternative, the Commission held that the penalty of dismissal was too severe given the appellant's excellent prior record and reduced the penalty to a reduction in rank for 18 months.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for neglect of duty under the Police Act.

The charge arose from an incident where the officer responded to a call about a potentially impaired driver whose vehicle was partially in a ditch.

Despite observations from two tow truck drivers indicating the motorist was impaired, the officer concluded the driver was merely tired and arranged for him to be towed home without conducting further tests.

The Commission found that the circumstances ought to have aroused the officer's suspicion and required further inquiry.

The conviction for neglect of duty was upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and sentence for discreditable conduct after using profane and insulting language toward a civilian clerk.

The appellant argued the charge was improperly laid under subsection 1(a)(i) of the Code of Offences because the conduct did not occur in public.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that public discredit is not a required element of the offence and that internal discredit to the reputation of the police force is sufficient.

The penalty was upheld given the appellant's previous record.

The appellant police constable appealed the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal imposed by the Chief of Police following convictions for three major disciplinary offences, including insubordination towards a superior officer and leaving his assigned foot-patrol area without permission.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the administration of the penalty despite the appellant's positive personal features.

The appellant, a police constable convicted of deceit and dismissed from the force, applied for an order declaring that a letter sent by the Police Association requesting an extension of time to file an appeal constituted a valid Notice of Appeal under Regulation 791 of the Police Act.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the application, finding that the letter explicitly requested an extension of time and could not be construed as a Notice of Appeal itself.

The appellant, a police constable and president of the local police association, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct.

The conviction arose after he forwarded incomplete and potentially misleading documentation regarding internal force issues directly to the Ontario Police Commission, bypassing the local Board of Commissioners of Police.

The Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, holding that as a matter of policy, police associations must be free to approach the Commission for advice and assistance without fear of disciplinary prosecution, even if the approach was premature or imprudent.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision of the Board of Commissioners of Police affirming his conviction for assaulting a fellow officer and varying his penalty from dismissal to a reduction in rank.

The appellant argued the assault was trivial, the Board erred in considering his past record, and the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding sufficient evidence of an assault intended to intimidate.

The Commission varied the penalty by imposing a nine-month time limit on the reduction in rank, holding that an indefinite reduction improperly delegated the ultimate penalty decision.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for insubordination and the resulting penalty of termination.

The officer had refused a direct order to walk a beat, citing medical problems with his legs, but provided no further explanation at the time.

The officer had previously arranged to work until he qualified for a disability pension but later refused to comply with the agreed-upon shift work.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge sheet defects were not fatal, the ordering officers were not fully aware of his medical limitations, and there was no denial of natural justice.

The penalty of termination was upheld given the officer's admitted inability to perform general police duties.