Woodward Bruce McKaig

The appellant police officer appealed convictions for misconduct under the Police Services Act for using unnecessary force and neglect of duty.

The Hearing Officer found that the appellant had pepper-sprayed a handcuffed prisoner in the back of a police cruiser and subsequently failed to document the use of force in his arrest report or a mandatory Use of Force Report.

On appeal, the Commission held that the Hearing Officer's credibility findings and conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Commission found no manifest error in the determination that the failure to report the use of pepper spray was deliberate and constituted neglect of duty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police appealed a motions judge's order refusing to dissolve an injunction against Aboriginal protestors occupying a residential development, and requiring the Attorney General to take carriage of criminal contempt proceedings while reporting back to the court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

It held that the motions judge erred in refusing to dissolve the injunction after the Ontario government purchased the property and consented to the occupation.

The Court maintained the referral of the contempt matters to the Attorney General, but imposed strict conditions, finding that the motions judge's previous contempt process was fundamentally flawed for denying procedural fairness and improperly interfering with police and prosecutorial discretion.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to stay an order of a motion judge pending appeal.

The motion judge had refused to dissolve an injunction prohibiting protestors from occupying land, even though the land had been purchased by the Province of Ontario, until criminal contempt proceedings were disposed of.

The Court of Appeal granted a stay of the paragraph continuing the injunction, finding a serious issue as to its validity, irreparable harm to the public interest and land claim negotiations, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court declined to stay the paragraph referring the contempt matter to the Attorney General for carriage.

The appellant successfully appealed a hearing officer's decision, resulting in findings of misconduct against two police officers for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

This decision determines the appropriate penalty.

The Commission considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the officers' employment histories, and the element of provocation by the appellant.

Constable Parker, who initiated the arrest, was suspended without pay for 32 hours.

Constable Koscinski, who assisted, was ordered to forfeit 16 hours off.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision that found two police officers not guilty of misconduct for an unlawful arrest and unnecessary use of force in a courtroom.

The Commission previously revoked the hearing officer's findings and substituted determinations of guilt.

In this penalty decision, the Commission considered the officers' employment histories, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the appellant's provocative behavior.

The Commission imposed a penalty of a 32-hour suspension without pay for the primary officer and a forfeiture of 16 hours off for the junior officer who assisted.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision clearing two police officers of misconduct.

The Commission previously revoked that decision and found the officers guilty of making an unlawful and unnecessary arrest and using unnecessary force against the appellant in a courtroom.

In this penalty decision, the Commission weighed the seriousness of the misconduct against mitigating factors, including the officers' employment records and the appellant's provocative behaviour.

The Commission ordered the senior officer to be suspended without pay for four days (32 hours) and the junior officer to forfeit two days (16 hours) off.

The appellant appealed a hearing officer's decision dismissing allegations of misconduct against two police officers.

The officers had arrested the appellant for causing a disturbance in a courtroom while a Justice of the Peace was presiding, subsequently using force to remove him.

The Commission revoked the hearing officer's decision, finding that the officers' general authority to arrest for a disturbance was superseded by the presiding Justice of the Peace's authority to control the courtroom and deal with contempt.

The Commission concluded the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary, rendering the force used unjustified, and found the officers guilty of misconduct.

The appellant was arrested by two police officers for causing a disturbance in a courtroom while a Justice of the Peace was presiding over his wife's trial.

The officers dragged the appellant from the courtroom and used force to restrain him.

The appellant filed a public complaint, and a disciplinary hearing initially cleared the officers.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the hearing officer's decision, finding that the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary because the presiding Justice of the Peace's authority to control the courtroom and deal with contempt superseded the officers' general authority to arrest for a disturbance.

Consequently, the force used was unjustified, and the officers were found guilty of misconduct.

The appellant appealed a disciplinary hearing decision that cleared two police officers of misconduct for arresting him and using force in a courtroom.

The appellant had been making disruptive comments during his wife's trial.

The officers arrested him for causing a disturbance without direction from the presiding Justice of the Peace.

The Commission found that the officers' authority to arrest for a disturbance was superseded by the presiding Justice of the Peace's power to control the courtroom and deal with contempt.

The Commission concluded the arrest was unlawful and unnecessary, and therefore the force used was unjustified, revoking the hearing officer's decision and finding the officers guilty of misconduct.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The appellant appealed the disciplinary conviction and penalty, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to stay the proceedings absent a Crown request, and holding that the Hearing Officer properly relied on the criminal conviction without re-litigating the facts.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as there was no manifest error in principle.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed, arguing the disciplinary hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that the Hearing Officer should have accepted his alternate version of events.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or in the penalty of dismissal, noting the Crown had not requested a stay of the disciplinary proceedings.

The Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Service and replace it with contract policing by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The Commission reviewed the proposed staffing, deployment, facilities, communications, and equipment to determine if the new arrangement would provide adequate and effective police services under the Police Services Act.

Finding that the proposed OPP integration maintained historical deployment levels and provided appropriate infrastructure, the Commission concluded the arrangement was adequate.

As severance agreements or consents to arbitration were in place for all members, the Commission granted consent to abolish the municipal police service.