W. Michael Temple

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services appealed two Divisional Court decisions quashing its orders to hold hearings into civilian complaints against police officers.

The Divisional Court had held that the Commission failed to specify the allegations with sufficient particularity.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that the Commission is only required to provide sufficient information to permit the chief of police to reasonably inform the officer of the case to meet, and is not required to draft the actual charge or provide reasons.

The Court also dismissed a cross-appeal, finding that the remedial steps in s. 13(3) of the Regulation do not apply to public complaints of unsatisfactory work performance.

The appellants challenged a Divisional Court order quashing a police discipline adjudicator's ruling that admitted a complainant's preliminary inquiry testimony after the complainant refused to testify at the discipline hearing.

The Court of Appeal held that, although judicial review of a preliminary evidentiary ruling would normally be premature, the unusual circumstances justified immediate intervention because the prosecution case depended entirely on the transcript and further cross-examination on recovered memory issues was unavailable.

The court agreed that admitting the transcript would amount to a denial of natural justice and declined to interfere with the Divisional Court's exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police applied for judicial review to quash a penalty imposed on a police officer by a retired superintendent following a disciplinary hearing.

The Commissioner argued that while the superintendent had delegated authority to conduct the hearing, he lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Police Services Act contemplates the person conducting the hearing also imposing the penalty.

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to refuse judicial review because the Commissioner had fully participated in the penalty hearing and invited the superintendent to exercise the very jurisdiction she later challenged.