Penalty upheld for Southwestern Ontario cop who gave Freedom Convoy $50

WINDSOR – The Ontario Civilian Police Commission has dismissed a Windsor police officer’s appeal of a disciplinary conviction and “harsh” penalty levied by his employer for a $50 Freedom Convoy donation made in 2022.

Article content

Const. Michael Brisco was found guilty of discreditable conduct following a four-day hearing last March. He was ordered to forfeit 80 hours of pay.

Article content

The OCPC, an independent, quasi-judicial agency whose function includes hearing appeals of disciplinary decisions, agreed the penalty was “significant” but not unreasonable.

The appellant raised three issues, which were heard last Nov. 21, alleging: no “clear and compelling evidence” of discreditable conduct; the investigation of the donation was an abuse of process; and the penalty was “unreasonable and unduly harsh.”

At the time of his donation, Brisco was on unpaid leave for refusing to take the available COVID-19 vaccine. He argued at the earlier hearing that his donation was intended for the Ottawa protesters and made privately on a crowd-source funding website that Ontario Provincial Police investigators later used to identify police donors.

Article content

At the time, Brisco’s colleagues were dealing with a blockade of the Ambassador Bridge by others demonstrating against government COVID-19 restrictions. Eventually, with the help of police officers brought in from other jurisdictions, and armed with a court injunction, those protesters were removed.

The OCPC panel pointed out that Brisco himself told the earlier Windsor hearing that he was aware public officials had described the Freedom Convoy demonstration in Ottawa as illegal at the time of his donation.

The Commission said it supports the factual and credible findings of last year’s hearing officer, retired OPP superintendent Morris Elbers. As for the claim there was an abuse of process – the OPP’s investigation that identified Brisco and others was based on a list of donors illegally obtained by a third party – the Commission said no “abuse of application” claim had been filed at the hearing stage and that “new arguments should not be heard on appeal.”

Article content

As for the penalty imposed on Brisco, the three commission members dealing with the appeal wrote that, “while the penalty can be characterized as significant. . . it is far less serious than demotion or termination.”

The panel cited the hearing officer’s reference to “the harm caused to the reputation of the (Windsor Police Service). This factor is particularly linked to the important objective of maintaining confidence in policing.”

As such, the Commission did not view the penalty as “a disproportionate limit” on the appellant’s Charter right.

At the time of his appeal hearing, Brisco, a long-time Windsor police officer, was described by a superior as “a valued and productive” and dedicated member of the department.

[email protected]

Article content