W. Michael Temple, Q.C.

The appellant, a first class constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The charge arose after the appellant pointed his loaded service pistol at a fellow officer who was waving a baton near his head.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably rejected the appellant's defence of non-insane automatism based on expert psychiatric evidence.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty.

It found that the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the significant workplace harassment the appellant had endured, which acted as provocation, and to the appellant's strong potential for rehabilitation.

The penalty was varied from dismissal to a reduction in rank to third class constable for two years, subject to a detailed return to work plan.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police appealed a disciplinary sanction imposed on a constable by a delegated Hearing Officer.

The respondent constable brought a preliminary motion arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Commissioner is not a 'complainant' under section 70 of the Police Services Act.

The Commission agreed, finding that interpreting the Commissioner as a complainant would lead to absurdities within the statutory scheme.

The motion to strike the appeal was granted.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of dismissal imposed after he was convicted of two counts of discreditable conduct.

The charges arose from an off-duty bar brawl that resulted in criminal convictions for assault and causing a disturbance.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the officer's conduct was a clear transgression of his oath of office and that his history of criminal and disciplinary convictions demonstrated he could not be rehabilitated.

The Appellant, an OPP Sergeant, appealed a disciplinary conviction for Damage to Clothing or Equipment after rear-ending a civilian vehicle with his police cruiser in winter conditions.

He argued the Adjudicator erred by rejecting expert evidence regarding potential mechanical failure and by ignoring the investigating officer's recommendation against disciplinary action.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to adjust his driving to the poor visibility and road conditions, and that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the conviction.

The appellant police officer was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80mg and subsequently found guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act, resulting in a penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay.

The officer appealed the disciplinary penalty, seeking an adjournment pending his criminal appeal and a reduction of the penalty to three days' pay.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the request for an adjournment, finding that the employer had the right to proceed with discipline once a conviction was registered.

The Commission also upheld the five-day pay forfeiture, emphasizing the need for exemplary penalties for police officers who engage in drinking and driving.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct following an altercation at a bar where he restrained a bouncer who was attempting to break up a fight involving another officer.

The appellant appealed the conviction and the penalty of a two-day pay forfeiture.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the adjudicator's acceptance of the bouncer's evidence was reasonable.

However, the Commission reduced the penalty to a one-day pay forfeiture, noting the appellant's clear disciplinary record and his lesser culpability compared to the other officer involved.

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 was convicted of multiple counts of discreditable conduct for making unwelcome sexual comments and physical advances toward female colleagues and civilians while off-duty at a motel during a temporary posting.

The Commission upheld the convictions, rejecting the appellant's explanations and his argument that the relaxed off-duty atmosphere excused his behaviour.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against penalty, finding the original sentence too harsh given the appellant's efforts at rehabilitation, and reduced his rank to Fourth Class Constable.

The appellant police officer was convicted of neglect of duty for failing to prepare a fingerprint comparison chart prior to a preliminary hearing, resulting in the withdrawal of criminal charges.

The Hearing Officer found the appellant should have used his rest days to complete the task.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission set aside the conviction, finding that the appellant had made a diligent attempt to fulfill his duties during his regular working hours and that the expectation to use rest days was based on hindsight.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct and the penalty of resignation.

The charge arose from a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl.

The appellant had been acquitted of criminal sexual assault charges because the Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the conduct was discreditable and contrary to society's expectations.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of resignation, noting the appellant's prior criminal and Police Act convictions.

The appeal was dismissed.

Two off-duty police officers appealed their convictions and penalties under the Police Act for arresting a taxi driver for impaired driving without sufficient cause.

The officers claimed the driver showed signs of impairment, but subsequent breath tests were negative and other officers found no evidence of impairment.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Hearing Officer's credibility findings against the officers.

The Commission confirmed the penalties, noting it considered increasing them but refrained because Force counsel had not sought an increase.