Professional Standards Policing
The Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC or “Commission”) has a diverse mandate consisting primarily of hearing appeals of police disciplinary matters. Under the Police Services Act, the Commission also has the authority to accept and adjudicate a number of different appeals and applications.
Disciplinary Hearings
Under the Police Services Act, disciplinary hearings are conducted by the police services. The outcome of the hearing is decided by a hearing officer. A hearing officer is designated by the chief of police or Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner, who is also responsible for discipline. At a disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer must decide whether the allegations of misconduct have been proven on clear and convincing evidence.
OCPC Appeal Process
A respondent officer and a complainant may appeal a hearing officer’s decision to the OCPC within 30 days of receiving the decision.
The Assignment
Please visit the following website: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncpc/ or Google ‘OCPC’ and then click on ‘Decisions’ and follow the directions from there.
From the list of cases/decisions, pick one you find interesting from 2020 or 2019.
• Provide a synopsis of the decision and highlight the arguments being put forward
• Look up the case law referenced in the decision. Provide a summary of the case law and comment as to whether or not you think the case law is good/relevant to the decision.
• Provide your opinion – do you agree with the ruling in the appeal or not.
• 750 to 1000 words
Professional standards – Policing, Synopsis of the decision
Constable Adam Campoli was the appellant versus the Toronto Police service as the respondent, with the Independent Police Review Director as the intervener and Mr. John as the public complainant. The case had been determined by Superintendent Riyaz Hussein on the 6th December 2019, implicating Constable Campoli of one count in contravention of the Code of conduct (Campoli v. Toronto Police Service, 2020). The case is an appeal in which the appellant Adam Campoli was guilty of Discreditable Conduct contrary to the provisions of the police code of conduct through abusive words and demeaning language against John, who had lost his vehicle. In the appeal case, the appellant justifies using his language within the context in which Mr. John had reported the situation involving the location of his stolen car. Constable Campoli had acted in information regarding a gun’s potential in the vehicle’s location while also acting from information relating to John’s conduct against the police in the past. By comparing similar cases in the past involving police conduct, the intervener emphasizes the need to determine the context of Campoli’s language holistically throughout the vehicle recovery process instead of the objectification of the singular incident. Thus, the Intervener bases their decision on the Hearing Officer points out Campoli’s use of profane language and conduct to depict the police service’s role and actions negatively. While the Hearing Officer highlights the need for determining the case through an objective test of Campoli’s code of conduct, the analysis asserts the potential for a discrepancy in considering his actions within the situation. Nonetheless, the Intervener failed to take up a position on the appellant’s case given its diversity and nature (Campoli v. Toronto Police Service, 2020).
Referenced case laws
The case law references various past cases in providing a basis for the disposition and acquitting the appellant of the charges and initial verdict of guilt. First, it is apparent the parties reference the Mulville and Azaryev and York Regional Police Service, asserting the justification for determining the officer’s conduct (Campoli v. Toronto Police Service, 2020). In this case, the objective test enhances the defense for implicating the officer, Mr. P.C. Mulville, of the charges. In the second reference case involving Mulligan v. Ontario Provincial Police, the commission emphasizes the police responsibility of engaging in justifiable conduct (Campoli v. Toronto Police Service, 2020). In all the cases involving the police officers as referenced affirming their Discreditable behavior, the decision tends to implicate officers in upholding the integrity and ethical responsibility towards managing diverse situations and circumstances during their operations (Code of Conduct, 2020). The intervener further considers the case involving the Saxon vs. Amherstburg of 2011 as a significant contribution to police officers’ Discreditable Conduct. Through the case, it is evident that the primary objection needs to consider assessing the reasonable expectation of police conduct during any confrontations or engagements within their communities.
Indeed, the appeal decision fails to effectively apply the previous case references evaluating police officers’ conduct concerning their conduct. In the appeal case by Campoli, it is evident that the interpreter tends to eliminate the objective clause and test in establishing the potential harm the officer could pose to the police service. Further, the commission fails to consider the public complainant’s circumstances in asserting their decision implying the possible falsehood in their submissions’ nature (Campoli v. Toronto Police Service, 2020). While discrediting the case based on its age and failure to serve the public interest, the interpreter through the commission assumes responsibility in faulting the complainant. Thus, it becomes apparent that the decision lacks a comprehensive outlook and incorporation of diverse aspects from previously references cases and circumstantial evidence utilized by the previous hearing officer in faulting Campoli’s actions.
Opinion
The appeal decision fails to consider the situation and nature of the appellant’s necessary actions to uphold in calming down the problem. While considering the evidence provided by Campoli’s colleague on duty during the incident, it is apparent the verdict tends to fault Mr. John, having provoked the officer to engage contrary to their expected behavior. Besides, the verdict’s provisions tend to substitute the need for reasonable conduct for the officer while highlighting the victim’s violent nature on hearsay instead of reliable evidence (Code of Conduct, 2020). The intervener agrees with the appellant without highlighting the general public’s perception of who might have been present during the incidence. Concerning the Discreditable code of police conduct, the decision negates the previous verdicts and judgments favoring the appellant based on their situation compared to upholding the police values (Code of Conduct, 2020). Despite faulting the appellant, the intervener gives a justification for acquitting their actions despite the police commission and public image’s impact. As such, I’m afraid I have to disagree with the ruling based on the similarity of the case to Mulville, Mulligan, and Monaghan, which point to the considerable similarities in the police violation of the stipulated codes conduct towards the public (Campoli v. Toronto Police Service, 2020).
References
Campoli v. Toronto Police Service. (2020, February 16). Campoli v. Toronto Police Service, 2020 ONCPC 11 (CanLII). Captcha | CanLII. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncpc/doc/2020/2020oncpc11/2020oncpc11.html
Code of Conduct. (2020, January 29). Code of Conduct, O Reg 445/19 (CanLII). Captcha | CanLII. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-445-19/latest/o-reg-445-19.html
