W. Michael Temple

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his involvement in secondary employment without the consent of the Commissioner, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

The appellant argued that section 61 was discriminatory and violated sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty, relying on its previous decisions which rejected identical Charter challenges to the regulation.

The appellant police officer was convicted of discreditable conduct for engaging in a secondary retail business without the consent of the Commissioner, contrary to section 61 of Regulation 791 under the Police Act.

He appealed the conviction and the penalty of forfeiture of three vacation days to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the business was a commercial venture extending beyond a hobby, and that the Commissioner reasonably exercised his discretion to deny consent.

The Commission also rejected the appellant's argument that the prohibition violated his rights under sections 6(2) and 15 of the Charter, concluding that the limitation was reasonable and not discriminatory.

The appellant police officer was convicted of insubordination for disobeying an order to cease physical involvement in a secondary business (an outfitters store).

On appeal, the officer argued that he was merely counselled, not ordered, and challenged the authority to give such an order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the written memorandum and subsequent telephone conversation constituted a clear order to comply with the law regarding secondary employment.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of a reprimand was confirmed.

The appellants, a corporal and a constable, appealed their convictions for neglect of duty under the Police Act.

The charges arose from an incident where a civilian turned in a firearm for disposal, and the constable kept it for personal gain with the corporal's knowledge, in breach of Force procedures.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while there was no intent to deceive, intent is not an element of the offence.

The Commission confirmed the convictions and the penalties of forfeiture of pay and vacation days, dismissing the appeals.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for deceit under the Police Act.

He had been charged with willfully making a false statement to a superior officer regarding how he obtained radar readings for a speeding ticket.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer had implicitly accepted the appellant's evidence that he did not make the alleged false statement, and therefore could not have intended to commit the offence.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed her conviction for neglect of duty after a prisoner escaped from her custody.

The appellant was one of three officers at the scene of an arrest where four individuals were taken into custody.

While the prisoners were outside, one escaped into the bush.

The appellant, who was closest to the escaping prisoner, failed to immediately pursue him or notify another officer who was leaving the scene.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the escape of a secured prisoner raised a reasonable assumption of carelessness, compounded by the appellant's failure to seek assistance.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and penalty of an admonishment were confirmed.

The appellant, a Corporal and drum-major of the OPP Pipes and Drums Band, appealed his conviction for deceit and subsequent reduction in rank to Constable.

He had initialled overtime forms for two band members, knowing the hours claimed did not reflect actual travel time but rather normal driving time.

The Commission dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the appellant knowingly signed false statements in official documents and his altruistic motives were irrelevant to liability.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal against sentence, varying the punishment from a reduction in rank to the forfeiture of 20 days of leave, noting his previously unimpeachable character and the lax enforcement of overtime rules.

The appellant police constable appealed the penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay imposed after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct.

Due to errors in the hearing transcript, counsel for both parties agreed to vary the penalty rather than remit the matter for a rehearing.

The Commission allowed the appeal on consent and varied the penalty to two and one-half days' loss of pay.

The appellant, an Ontario Provincial Police constable, appealed his conviction for deceit and the resulting penalty of resignation or dismissal.

The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant's undercover vehicle was involved in a hit-and-run accident, and he subsequently made an unsigned, false entry in the detachment's Occurrence Book to conceal the vehicle's involvement.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the evidence supported the conclusion that the entry was made to deceive and interfere with the investigation.

The penalty was also upheld, as the appellant's actions constituted a severe breach of trust that compromised his integrity.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that Inducon Construction of Canada Limited and related companies violated the Carpenters' provincial collective agreement.

The respondents argued that any bargaining rights previously held had been abandoned and that the companies were not related employers.

The Board found that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, as the employer had not operated in the geographic area for several years.

Applying section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board declared that Inducon Development Corporation, Inducon Design/Build Associates, and Inducon Construction (Northern) Inc. carried on associated or related activities under common control and direction, and treated them as one employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The Board declined to include Desbil Management Inc. and Inducon Consultants of Canada Limited in the declaration, finding no labour relations purpose to do so.

The appellant, an Ontario Provincial Police constable, appealed his conviction for 'Neglect of Duty' and the penalty of the loss of two days' pay.

While off duty, the appellant seized a pair of lead-lined gloves from individuals drinking beer, placed them in his locker, and failed to make any entries in the Occurrence Book, Daily Journal, or submit a property report for over a month.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Assistant Commissioner's conclusion was supported by the evidence and that the penalty was appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed.