William R. MacKenzie

The appellant appealed a decision finding a police officer not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged the officer failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into a domestic dispute, citing the officer's prior acquaintance with a witness and failure to interview a nanny.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, concluding there was no manifest error in finding the officer's actions did not constitute neglect of duty and that the threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias was not met.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding a police constable not guilty of neglect of duty.

The appellant alleged the constable failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into a domestic dispute, citing the constable's prior acquaintance with a witness and failure to interview a nanny.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Hearing Officer's conclusions that the constable had reasonable grounds to arrest the appellant under the existing domestic violence policy and that the threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias was not met.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The conviction stemmed from an overheard conversation in which the appellant allegedly made reprisal comments about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint against him.

The appellant argued the hearing officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of one officer who overheard only a portion of the conversation.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments he allegedly made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed witness credibility, applied the correct legal principles, and reached a conclusion supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from reprisal comments he allegedly made about another officer who had filed a harassment complaint.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of an officer who overheard a portion of a conversation.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly assessed witness credibility and that the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence on the record.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations that the appellant engaged in an inappropriate relationship and sexual harassment with a 16-year-old girl while off duty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings of credibility, concluding that the standard of clear and convincing evidence was met.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding it consistent with prior cases involving similar off-duty misconduct.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal or resignation.

The conviction stemmed from allegations that the appellant engaged in an inappropriate relationship and sexual harassment involving a 16-year-old girl while off duty.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice, that the Hearing Officer misapplied the burden of proof, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer correctly applied the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard, made reasonable findings of credibility, and imposed an appropriate penalty given the seriousness of the conduct and the appellant's extensive prior disciplinary record.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations of an inappropriate off-duty relationship and sexual harassment involving a 16-year-old girl.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice, that the hearing officer applied the wrong burden of proof, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer correctly applied the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard, made reasonable credibility assessments, and imposed a penalty consistent with similar cases of serious misconduct.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The conviction stemmed from allegations of off-duty sexual harassment and an inappropriate relationship with a 16-year-old girl.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing process was fair, the Hearing Officer applied the correct 'clear and convincing evidence' standard of proof, and the credibility findings were supported by the evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, the officer's extensive prior disciplinary record, and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of reduction in rank from first-class to fourth-class constable for one year, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct stemming from a criminal conviction for uttering a death threat.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to treat the guilty plea as a mitigating factor and by treating the officer's defence strategy at his criminal trial as an aggravating factor.

The Commission also found the penalty was harsh and excessive given the officer's unblemished employment record and the principle of rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied to a reduction in rank to second-class constable for one year.

The appellant, a detective sergeant with 26 years of service, appealed the disciplinary penalties imposed after being found guilty of two counts of discreditable conduct for submitting false expense claims to an external law enforcement network.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a forfeiture of 20 days' leave for the first count and a six-month reduction in rank to sergeant for the second count.

On appeal, the appellant argued the penalties were excessive and violated the totality principle.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the two infractions were distinct and separated by time, justifying cumulative penalties.

The Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the mitigating factors and that the penalties were consistent with prior cases involving misappropriation by police officers.