William Carroll

The appellant police officer appealed findings of Neglect of Duty and Discreditable Conduct arising from his failure to arrest a suspect following a 9-1-1 call.

The Hearing Officer had found the appellant guilty and imposed a reduction in rank.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in his credibility assessments by relying solely on demeanour without providing cogent reasons, and misapprehended the evidence regarding whether reasonable and probable grounds existed to arrest the suspect.

The Commission concluded that the appellant reasonably determined there were no grounds for arrest.

The appeal was allowed, the findings of guilt were revoked, and the appellant was found not guilty on both charges.

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 finding of guilt for deceit and the penalty of demotion imposed for three counts of misconduct, including unauthorized access to police databases (CPIC and RMS) and deceit during a professional standards interview.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the officer deliberately lied to investigators to distance himself from an individual with a criminal record.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of demotion from First-Class to Third-Class Constable for one year, finding it consistent with the seriousness of the multiple breaches and the officer's deceit.

The applicants sought an order directing the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry to state a case to the Divisional Court regarding whether the proposed evidence of two witnesses fell within the Inquiry's Terms of Reference.

The evidence concerned a sexual assault reported contemporaneously, which the applicants argued did not constitute 'historical abuse' under the mandate.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner had not exceeded his jurisdiction and that the evidence was reasonably relevant to the Inquiry's mandate to examine the institutional response to allegations of abuse.

A dissenting opinion would have granted the application.