The Police Act
The Ontario Police Commission
Citation: 1981 ONCPC 3901
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL of the 1981 Budget for
the Niagara Regional Police Force.
Before: W.T. McGrenere, Esq., Q.C.,
Member,
Ontario Police Commission
Appearances: Frank L. Walsh, Esq., Q.C., Counsel for
the Regional Municipality of Niagara.
B.R. Baldwin , Esq., Counsel for the Board
of Commissioners of Police for Niagara
Region.
Held: July 27 and 28, 1981
This is an appeal by the Council of the Regional
Municipality of Niagara, which will hereinafter be referred
to as the Region, for a determination of the validity of the
budget for the fiscal year, 1981, for the Niagara Regional
Police Force, as submitted by the Niagara Regional Board of
Commissioners of Police, which will hereinafter be referred
to as the Board.
This appeal is brought pursuant to the provisions for
Section 14 (3) of The Police Act.
It is common ground that the Board is responsible for
the policing and maintenance of law and order in the munici-
pality. The Board must ensure the adequacy of its police
force , including the number of officers, constables,
assistants and civilian employees, as well as accommodation,
arms, equipment, clothing and any other essentials. The Region
is responsible for financing the Board`s reasonable undertakings.
The Board is required on or before the first day of
March in each year to prepare and submit to Region its
estimates of all monies required to maintain the force.
If the Council, in this case the Region, does not agree with
the estimates, or with the Board`s view as to the adequacy
of the police force or its needs, the matter can then be
referred to the Ontario Police Commission for a determination
of any questions raised.
The Board submitted estimates for 1981, totalling
$25,740,023.00. The Region, in applying a guideline
formula which will be examined more thoroughly later in
this report, suggested a more reasonable figure should not
exceed $ 23,573,329.00, The Board replied that
it was unable to reduce the estimates and declined an
invitation to meet with the Finance Committee, unless
the Committee could submit specifics to the Board as to where
the estimates could be reduced by $2.1 million.
Background
The Regional Municipality of Niagara was established on
January 1, 1970, and led to a regional police force that
provided policing for 12 municipalities. In the latter
part of 1977, the regional police force became responsible
for a number of other municipalities which had until that
time been policed by the Ontario Provincial Police. In
the latter part of 1976 , through to mid-1977, the regional
force hired sixty additional police officers to accommodate
its new responsibilities. Prior to August 5, 1980, the
authorized strength had not changed since January 1, 1978,
and was set at 555 police officers, 28 cadets and 88 civilian
personnel, for a total of 671.
In August, 1980, 20 civilians were hired , and in
October,1980, a further 16 were hired. These civilians
replaced uniformed officers and freed them for patrol or
supervisory duty. The addition of this personnel increased
the total complement to just over 700. The addition of
civilian personnel was brought about following recommendations
by the Ontario Police Commission after its Advisors had con-
ducted a lengthy and detailed investigation into the adequacy
and efficiency of the Regional force. The Ontario Police
Commission was asked by the Board to conduct this investi-
gation, by letter of September .12, 1979. This letter refers
to the effect of a substantial increase in the overall cost
of operation because of a recent arbitration award and
expresses concern about cost control and efficiency for
the force.
In addition to these factors, Chief Harris had asked
the Board to consider an Ontario Police Commission study.
because of his inability to persuade the Board of the need to
increase the force`s authorized strength. His concern as to
the lack manpower and deployment prior to this time was
shared by a number of local politicians and newspapers, as
is evidenced in the newspaper clippings produced as an exhibit
(Book 4 – Exhibit 21). These excerpts indicate dissatisfaction
with policing in Thorold, Port Coulbourne, Fort Eire, and to
some extent in Niagara Falls.
The Region`s Position
The Region takes the position that the 1981 estimates
show an increase of $4.6 million over 1980, which represents
an increase of 21.6%. The Region indicated that it was
hampered in making an effective analysis of the budget
estimates because the Board declined to submit budget in
the same form as prepared in 1980. While reserving its right
to pursue any matters which may appear appropriate at the hear-
ing, the Region, through its Council, advised of five specific
areas of complaint which were as follows.
- An expenditure increase of $4.6 million or 21.6%
in one year is excessive and unwarranted. The
Police Board has made no attempt to observe
regional budgeting guidelines.
- The Niagara Regional Police Board hired 36 new
civilians in 1980. This was done without regard
for the effect on the 1981 budget and was unnecessary.
- The Police Board overspent its 1980 current budget
by 463,000.00, thus creating a deficit which
increased the amount of the 1981 regional levy.
The 1981 police budget gave no consideration to
the effect of this deficit.
- The salaries and benefits negotiated by the Police
Board exceed those payable in comparable munici-
palities, and, in particular, exceed those enjoyed
by regional employees in comparable positions.
- The Police Board estimates for the purchase of motor
vehicles have increased by 507 , over 1980. This is an
unreasonable increase in one year.
At the outset , Counsel for the Region indicated that
he would not be pursuing Item No. 5.
While I recognise that this inquiry is not limited to
a consideration of the objections listed above, I propose to
deal at this stage with stage with the items as listed and Board`s
response to each. I then propose to deal with the general
question of the adequacy of the force.
Objection 1
An expenditure increase of $4.6 million or 21.6% in
one year is excessive and unwarranted. The Police Board has
made no attempt to observe regional budgeting guideline.
Mr. Mowder, Director of Finance for Region, gave
evidence that the Board ought to have followed established
guidelines for the Region, and if it had, their requirements
would be reduced by $2,166,694.00.
Schedule 1 to Exhibit 1 demonstrates how the estimates
should have totalled $23,573,329.00 instead of $25,740,023.00
if the Board had followed the Region`s guidelines . Mr. Mowder
indicated that the guidelines were fixed percentages applied
to actual cost figures for regional forces for the year
1979, which were then appropriately extended to 1980 and then
to 1981. The percentage factor applied was 7% to operating
costs and to the Police Board. The buildings and debut
charges were adjusted in accordance with the Region`s formula.
The salaries and benefits were factored by the actual percentage
increased agreed to in the settlement with the Police Associa-
tion. Subsequent to the initial calculations by the Region`s
Finance Department, the percentage factor of 77o was considered
to be to low and did not adequately reflect the then current
inflation rate. The rate was, therefore, raised to 9.5%.
The decision to raise the rate was not communicated by the
Region to the Board because Mr. Mowder did not think it would
make any difference to the Board because they were already
in excess of their budget when the decision had been made.
In any event, an error in the guidelines calculation, referred
to above, favoured the Board, and a similar calculation
based on the 9.5% factor, indicated the Board budget would
be in excess of guideline budget by approximately
$2,300,000.00. The Region sought to support its position
by an analysis of comparable police per captia expenditures
for regional municipalities. These are seen in Exhibit 5
These statistics reflect firstly, that Niagara Regional Forces
have the third highest per captia costs , next to Metropolitan
Toronto and Hamilton-Wentworth Region, and, secondly, that
Niagara had the second largest percentage increase in per
capita cost between 1980 and 1981.
Mr. Mowder indicated that the net increase to the
Region`s 1981 budget over 1980 was $6.5 million. Of this
amount he said that the Board`s budget accounted for 77%
In arriving at the net budget he took the gross estimates
and reduced same by the sum allowed for conditional grants.
These latter grants being paid to the Region only if certain
projects were undertaken. Fixed grants, such as those
allowed for policing, were not deducted. The theory for
not deducting the latter was that they remain static, and
unless there is an increase in the grant in a particular fiscal
year, any increase in the Board`s budget had obtained
out of the municipal tax levy. The evidence indicated that
the fixed grants for policing were $12.00 per captia prior
to 1977. They were then raised to $15.00 per captia in 1977,
and then to $17.00 in 1981.
The Board`s Response
Deputy Chief Gayder gave evidence that his initial
approach in the preparation of the Board`s budget was to
take all aspects of policing needs into consideration without
reflecting upon the ability of the taxpayer to pay. He said
he would receive requests from officers in charge in each
of the Divisions. These would be received by September 1
of year preceding the budget year. He would summarize
the requests and cost them out. The matter would be reviewed
with Chief Harris and Deputy Chief Walsh. The budget would
be cut at that time and then sent out for costing in 75 cate-
gories.
The budget is then presented to the Board and the Board
would normally ask for further reductions. If that is the
case, then the budget is sent back for further costing.
Once it is acceptable to the Board, it is forwarded to the
Region for approval.
Chief Harris indicated that consideration of the tax-
payers` ability to pay was certainly considered, and that the
Board and his staff tried to follow budgetary guidelines.
He admitted that he was at odds with his Board from time
to time because the Board cut items out of the budget which
he thought were essential . He said that the Board pretty
well always met the guidelines until 1980. He felt that.
the reason for the large increase in the budget in 1981 was
the result of the following factors :-
- In 1979, the Board had budgeted for salary increases of
7.086%, but an allowance of 107o was given at arbi-
tration. Instead of returning to the Region
obtain more funds, other areas were cut, such as the
purchase of replacement cars. This was further com-
pounded by the restraints of 1980, arid the turnover of
cars was again postponed with a double effect:
(a) the cars cost more because of
inflation, and,
(b) the disposal value was less because
of the condition of cars.
- The 60 constables hired in 1976-77, had matured to
first-class constables, thereby raising their earning
rates substantially
- The implementation of the recommendations of the
Ontario Police Commission which meant hiring 36
civilians and purchasing 10 additional cars. The
latter purchases were necessary because the majority
of the officers freed from desk duty would be going
on patrol or supervisory duties.
Chief Harris felt that the Niagara Regional Force
could not be adequately compared to other Regions because.
of its unique situation. He said that because of Niagara
Falls there is an influx of approximately 16 million visitors
to the area. He had asked for additional uniformed man-
power in 1979, and this was refused by the Board. This
ultimately led him to ask the Board to request to study by the
Ontario Police Commission. The Chief stated that in 1972
the statistics showed that 24, 743 criminal offences were
committed in the Region, an 6,193 persons are imprisoned.
As at the end of 1980, 48, 379 criminal offences were committed
and 12,091 persons were imprisoned. As of the first 6
months of 1981, the criminal offences have increased by 4.8 % ,
and the imprisonments by 4.5%. In the Chief’s opinion,
the Region was just reaping the benefits of a permissive
society. He felt that the leniency extended to the
criminals under the Bail Reform Act and under the parole
system put the professional criminals back on the street
faster than was the case in the past. He also allowed that
white-collar crime, and this, too, has had. an effect on the
need for more manpower.
He was asked if the 1981 budget could be reduced by
$2.1 million, and he was adamant that it was impossible to
reduce the budget at all. He said that the amount sought
in the budget was, in his opinion, necessary to support a
force adequate and efficient to cover the Region. His yard
stick in determining the adequacy if the force was based on
the following:
the crime rate ;
the crime clearance rate ;
the motor vehicle collisions
fatalities ;
the per capita case load
I had originally been under the mistaken impression,
after Mr. Mowder had completed his evidence, and after the
cross-examination of Mr. L.J. Quattrini, Administrator
of the Board, that the Board and its members were
unco-operative and had failed to return the forms and
provide the information requested by the Region for their
consideration. Superintendent Bevan testified that he
met with Mr. Barrs, from the Region’s Finance Department,
on a number of occasions and had gone over some the
forms with Mr. Barrs . He further indicated that Mr. Barrs
advised him to use those forms which he could, and provide. the
balance at a subsequent time. Superintendent Bevan indicated
that a great deal time and documentation went into the
preparation of the budget, which may have to be re-drafted
up to ten times. He demonstrated what obviously was a
thick and substantial book forms that he was in the habit.
of using. He testified that he was, therefore not anxious
to take on more forms would not have to be changed because
of a change in the budget.
Mr. Barrs did not give evidence, but Mr. Mowder, in
giving reply evidence, indicated that Mr. Barrs would have
his authority to make the arrangements concerning the forms.
He clarified the matter further by stating that the Board.
representatives were co-operative in providing his staff
with the information requested.
Conclusion
A great deal of time was spent in discussing prior
approved commitments and the effect they had on the Board’s
budget of 1981. The use of this concept did not play a
part in the budget as originally drafted , but was intro-
duced shortly thereafter as part of the Region’s forms in
an attempt to obtain uniform budget submissions from all
departments. Whatever may be value of the concept, I
tool to record in a different fashion what had already been
presented by the original authors of the budget.
I am of the opinion that the Board’s budget required
more than statistical analysis. On the evidence given
by the Board members, which was not contradicted nor
seriously challenged under cross-examination, the budget
appears to be consistent with the force’s need and I do
not find it unreasonable.
Objection #2
The Niagara Police Board hired 36 new civilians
in 1980. was done without regard for the
effect on the 1981 budget and was unnecessary.
Mr. Mowder advised that he was aware that the Ontario
Police Commission report of March, 1980, had recommended
that a number of uniformed police be replaced by civilians.
He did not quarrel with the recommendation but, on his
interpretation of the report, he did not think there was any
urgency in achieving this end. He thought that the Commission
was trying to introduce efficiency and cost saving. He
further thought that the recommendations would be imple-
mented in part by attrition, and, in any event, that the
civilian staff would not be hired all at once.
He calculated that the cost of hiring the 32 civilian
staff would amount to $642,729.00. This was made up as
follows :
Civilian Salaries and Benefits $512,653.00
Additional Cars 75,800.00
Additional Police Costs 54,276.00.
The additional police costs were based on the
assumption that each of the officers replaced would require
payments for 37o overtime, 1% callback, and 2% court time of
their annual salary. Mr. Mowder further indicated that
he thought of Financial Department should have been advised
of the Board’s decision to hire all of the additional personnel.
He admitted that he was aware of a contingency sum of $150,000.00
in the Board’s 1980 budget to implement that recommendations of
the Commission report. He appreciated that this was to hire
staff, but he did not know how many, nor when they would be
hired. He originally could not recall discussing the pro-
jected figure for the cost of hiring. When giving evidence
in reply, however, he admitted that he could have given a
he would have some idea of the number of civilians
to be hired.
The Board’s Response
Deputy Chief Gayder testified that the provision of
$150,000.00 had been put in the 1980 budget for the possible
implementation of the Commission’s recommendations. He said
that Mr. Mowder was aware of this provision, and he further
stated that he had discussed this implementation of the
Commission report with Mr. Mowder, who had estimated it would
cost approximately $485,000.00 to hire the proposed civilians.
It was also disclosed that the Finance Department
would know precisely how many civilians and when they
had been hired because the Department was responsible
for the police payroll period.
It was also suggested that because Mr. Hatch, a
Member of the Board, was also Chairman of the Finance
Committee, the Council should have been aware of the
Board’s decision to hire the civilians. Mr. Walsh sub-
mitted that , just because Mr. Hatch had a dual capacity,
he should not be consideration as the Board’s messenger to
the Region. I agree with this submission, but I would
have thought there might have been some discussion between
Mr. Hatch and the Director of Finance if the former felt
that the issue of increased hirings to be of significance to
the Region.
Since the Finance Department knew of the additional
hirings at the time they look place, which was well before
the end of 1980, I am not sure what effect, if any, the
Board’s failure to formally advise of the hirings had on
the Region. I can see where it would be helpful to the
Finance Department to have information of this nature as early
as possible for consideration of the future budget.
Conclusion
The Commission of March, 1980, filed as
Exhibit #11, was quoted from by both parties in support of
their positions. The report recommends a shift to
civilianization. In deal with this aspect , it goes
on to state on page 17: “It must be emphasized that the
main thrust of this policy should not be aimed at reducing
the overall establishment of the police force but at
releasing police officers to perform police oriented duties.”
In view of the evidence leading to the request for the
report and the contents of the report itself, it is difficult
to conclude that the move to increase the police force by 36
civilians was unnecessary. There is no doubt that such an
increase would have an impact on the budget and that the
timing would be a factor. Apart from the comments that I
will make dealing with Objection #3, I do not find that
it was unreasonable for the Board to proceed in the fashion
in which it did in hiring the civilians.
Objection #3
The Police Board overspent its 1980
current budget by $463,000.00 thus
creating a deficit which increased
the amount of the 1981 regional levy.
The 1981 police budget gave no
consideration to the effect of this
deficit.
This item raised the issue of bad faith being exercised
by the Board. The evidence discloses that the 1980 budget
was not acceptable to the Region because it failed to meet
the guidelines. As a result, $318,000.00 had to be deducted
from the estimates before the Region approved the same.
(Exhibit 7) a letter from the Board of the Region, dated
April 30, 1980, contained the following Resolution by the Board :
“That the 1980 Budget, with the
reductions as indicated by Chief
Harris, which brings it in com-
pliance with the 11.4% guidelines
requested by Regional Finance, be
accepted with this reservation that
this Commission, as well as the Chief
of Police and his staff, will do, as
is now done, everything possible to
live within the confines of this budget
and the Commission pledges itself to
that objective, but at the same time,
in all fairness, the Regional Finance
Committee be informed that there is a
distinct possibility of having to reduce
police services in the future to live
within the confines of this budget.”
The evidence disclosed that 20 civilians were hired
on August 5, 1980, and a further 16 on 0ctober 1, 1980. On
September 21, 1980, the Administrator for the Board wrote to
the Chairman if the Region advising that the Board anticipated
to deficit in its budget of $233,736.00. The Region takes
issue with the Board proceeding with the second set of hirings
which occurred in October when the Board was facing a deficit
of which they were familiar.
The Board’s Response
Chief Harris said that the 1980 budget was doomed to
failure because of cuts in the 1979 budget. He told the
Board that he did not feel it would be possible to live within
the budget despite the resolution referred to above.
The Chief and Deputy Chief felt that the Ontario Police
Commission’s recommendations should be implemented as quickly
as possible, and therefore requested approval from the Board
to proceed with the hiring. This was commenced in June, which
as well before the deficit was known to the Board. The first.
group of civilians hired was completed before the deficit
was known to the Board , although there was some suspicion
that something was amiss by the Board’s Administrator.
The evidence disclosed that the deficit was determined by
Deputy Chief Gayder when the computer printout from the
Region was showing a surplus.
Deputy Chief Gayder advised that he thought they
may be able to come within the budget by following other
economies. He further stated that he had been advised
by Mr. McKay, Mr. Mowder’s predecessor, and Mr. Stockdale
formerly of the Finance Department, that the Region would
pick up the deficit of the Board as long as the Board
tried to do the best they could. While it was admitted
that the Region would do so, it is obvious that it is
contrary to good budgetary policies.
Superintendent Bevan gave evidence that, according
to established accounting principles, the true deficit for
1980 was $260,000.00 as opposed to the sum in excess of
$400,000.00 referred to by the Region. He indicated that
the amount of $260,000.00 was increased by approximately
$170,000.00 , because the Region directed that the accounting
practice changes in mid-fiscal year. Prior to the change,
salaries and benefit payments made in fiscal year were
assessed against that year, notwithstanding that the majority
payments were earned in the prior year. As a result
of the change the salary earnings for the last few days of
December, 1980, which were paid for in 1981, were assessed
back to 1980, thus enlarging the deficit for one year.
As indicated earlier, Deputy Chief Gayder thought
that the force might be able to overcome the deficit in
part by curtailing overtime and by following other economies
but he had substantial misgivings.
Conclusion
In light of the fact that the force determined its
own deficit in the face of a computer printout showing a
surplus, and the fact that the anticipated deficit was
communicated to the Region as soon as it was apparent to the
Board, I am not prepared to conclude that the Board acted in
bad faith in continuing with the hiring of the civilians.
While it may not have been an exercise in bad faith, I
nevertheless, think it was imprudent in the circumstances.
Objection #4
The salaries and benefits negotiated by
the Police Board exceed those payable in
comparable municipalities, and in particular
exceed those enjoyed by regional employees
in comparable positions.
The inclusion of this item suggests by implication
that the Board has been guilty of mismanagement and largesse
relative to it’s force.
Mr.John Yeo, Personnel Director for the Region, dealt
with a comparison of the salaries between the Boards and the
Regions civilian employees, a marked differential in three
categories. This is shown in Exhibit #21. These categories
applied to secretaries for senior personnel. He also gave
evidence which indicated that the employees of the police
force enjoyed significantly better pension benefits, and
some of the other fringe benefits also were better than those.
enjoyed by the Region employees. He agreed under cross-
examination that some of the benefits derived by the force
were as a result of arbitration, and this was the case
particularly with regard to the wage differential to the
civilian staff. The arbitration award in 1974 set the
differential at 5%, and this was increased in the 1979 award
to 9%. He further agreed that the Board opposed both of
these increases. He also acknowledged that the Region
employees had some fringe benefits which were more liberal
than those of the Board’s employees.
The Region took issue with increments that were paid
to the civilian staff over and above the percentage increases
acknowledged in the press release following the settlement of
the 1981-82 contract with the Police Association of Ontario.
Mr. Yeo advised that the Board had announced a 7%
salary increase for the civilian staff for the year, 1981,
which ignored the incremental adjustment. When the
incremental adjustment was added on, the effect was to
increase the salary of the employees of five levels an
average of 7.8% as opposed to 7%. The average increase
for two groups , level 7 and level 8 was raised an average
of 11.45% no 7%. The latter two levels applied to the
secretaries for the Chief and Deputy Chiefs.
Mr. Yeo further contended that the increase for
uniformed personnel worked out an average increase for
1981 and 1982 of 13.2%, rather than the approximate 11 % for
1981, and a further 8% for 1982, announced by the Board.
Mr. Yeo calculated that the wage increases for 1981 would
be 10.9%, and for 1982, 11.9%, with a further 2% in 1983
The Board’s Response
Mr. L.J. Quattrini advised that the differential
of 5% in 1975 and 9% in 1979, resulted from arbitration
awards and that the Board strenuously objected to the
differential. Both arbitration reports were filled as
Exhibits Nos. 33 and 32 respectively.
Both Mr. Quattrini and Chief Harris took issue with
the comparison submitted by the Region, as set out in
Exhibit #21. They were of the view that the employee
levels compared were inadequate. It was contended that
the levels, other than #7 and #8 ,which included the secretaries
of the Chief and Deputy Chief, were in keeping with the arbi-
tration awards, and that the Chief’s secretaries ‘ tasks. There
was no evidence as to the situation relative to the Depart-
Chairman did not have assistant and this point, I do not
believe, was readily contested.
The evidence submitted by the Region (Exhibit #21)
and by the Board (Book 5- Exhibit #31) would seem to indicate
that the wage levels in level 1 are fairly close to the.
differential dictated by the arbitration awards. The
Board’s evidence in Exhibit 31 demonstrates that employee
wages in other levels , with the expectation of the Chief’s
secretaries, compare favourably with other Regions.
The evidence in behalf of the Board, which, in part,
is set out in Book 5 – Exhibit 29, indicates that the Board’s
pension benefits compare favourably with those of the other Regions.
Mr. Quattrini advised that type 3, which allows a pension
after 30 years, was common to most regional and other municipal
police forces before 1981. The Niagara Board only accepted
it in 1981 , and then only in part. The Board would not accept
the concept of a pension because of permanent partial disability,
this would allow a uniformed officer to retire at age 50, upon
recommendation of his or her physician and with the approval
of the Chief. This aspects was common to many other police
forces.
Mr. Quattrini indicated that the Board was adamantly
the civilian employees in 1981, was in lieu of service pay.
His evidence in that regard is set out in Book 5 – Exhibit 31,
and indicates that the grant of the one time increment saved
the Board $1,735.00 over 1981 and 1982, and at least post-
poned the acceptance of the service pay concept for 2 years.
Once the service pay concept was accepted it. of course,
would become a permanent fixture of any contract. The
evidence further disclosed that service pay was prevalent in
other municipal police contracts.
The Board’s witnesses indicated that the Niagara
police enjoyed salaries comparable to police in other
regional jurisdictions, no better nor worse. This is
documented in Book 5- Exhibit 28, which compares salary
levels in six other regions and two cities. These figures
were really not challenged in cross-examination, not were
they contradicted.
Conclusion
I am satisfied, on the whole, that the Board has
managed the pension and other fringe benefits consistent
with other comparable jurisdictions. The fact that there
is a differential over the Region employees is accounted
for in part by arbitration awards and by virtue of the
different collective bargaining considerations, such as
police earnings being compared to police earnings and not
other municipal employees’ earnings. An effort should
be made by the Board to try and contain the differential within
all levels as much as possible.
Part 2
Counsel for the Region indicated at the outset of the
hearing that the inquiry should not be confined to only the issues
raised by the Region, but should not include all aspects of the
Board’s operation. It was contended by the Region that it
did not have sufficient familiarity with the operation of the
Board and the force to examine in any detail . It was
further suggested that this inquiry must, therefore be satisfied
with the adequacy and the operation of the force on all of the
evidence tendered.
I agree that the Ontario Police Commission mandate
extends that far. The Board has produced , through its
witnesses and exhibits, a fairly conclusive picture of its
budgetary approach and contractual dealings with the Police
Association of Ontario. From Professor Barton’s comments
in the arbitrations award of 1979, and from the fact that the
Board has had two arbitrations in six years, it is apparent
that the Board has taken a reasonably firm stand against the
demands of Association. The fact that the Niagara Regional
Police Force salary and benefit levels compare favourably with
other Regions and municipalities would indicate that the
Board’s conduct is consistent with its sister organization.
It is also apparent from the evidence of the Chief
and Deputy Chief that the Board has not simply accepted the
Chief’s request for funds over the years. The statement of
surplus and deficits shown in Exhibit 20 indicates that in
the period from 1971 to 1980, the Board returning a surplus
to the Region in seven of the ten years, including 1979.
In the latter year, the budget was cut contrary to the Chief’s
in accordance with the budget. The 1980 budget presented a
problem, but that has been dealt with above.
It is of interest to note that in the budget for
the year, 1979, chosen by the Region as base year in its
calculations, the Board’s percentage of the Region’s gross
budget was 25%. It rose to 25.4% in 1980, and on the basis
of proposed budget for 1981, will have fallen by 1% to
25.3% of the gross Regional budget. The percentage increase
of the Board’s 1981 budget over the 1980 budget, as compared
to the gross Regional Budget increase for the same period, is
5% less. One would have thought that if the Board’s increase
was so far out of line it would have shown up in the analysis
as substantially disproportionate to the increase in the gross
Regional budget.
Using the same figures, as set out in Exhibit 4,
analysis of gross police and regional budgets from 1971 to 1982,
and using 1979 as a base year, it appears that in 1979, the
Board’s budget accounted for 30.60% of the “increase in the
gross Regional budget. In 1980, the Board’s budget accounted
for 29.12% of the increase in the gross Regional budget , and
in 1981, on the basis of the Board’s proposed budget, it will
account for 24.87% of the increase in the gross Regional budget
The comparative statistics for the other departments were not
produced, but one would think that other costs must have been
increasing at the same rate as policing, if not at a greater
rate.
While it may have no practical relationship, it is
interesting to note that gross police budget as a percentage
of the gross Regional budget appears to have increased almost
in the same proportion as the population has increased in the
ten years preceding 1980. The statistics reflect that the
population increased on the average 9% per annum, while the
police budget increased as a proportion of the gross Regional
budget by 68% per annum
While the population has only increased by approxi-
mately 10% in ten years preceding 1980, the criminal
offences have more than doubled.
Chief Harris in his evidence dealt with the adequacy
of the force and his concerns prior to 1979. This was alluded
to earlier in the report, and his concerns were responsible for
the production of the Ontario Police Commission report of March,
- Mr. W.S. Shimmin, one of the authors of the report,
gave evidence in part about timing for implementing the
recommendations set out in the report. He indicated that,
while the implementation of the recommendations had been dis-
cussed, no specifics were mentioned nor was a timetable set.
Mr. Shimmin, however, was not cross-examined as to the validity
of any findings or recommendations in the report.
Of the twenty-three recommendations made in the
Commission’s March, 1980, report , most have either been
implemented or are the subject of efforts towards implementation.
I propose in this report to deal specifically with only four of
these recommendations.
- Re-negotiation of present agreement to enable
the Chief of Police to provide a more flexible
system of manpower deployment to meet the police
needs of this programme.
This applies to the use of the four equal platoon system for
shift coverage. This was found to be inefficient in that it
provided too much coverage in some instances and too little in
others. While some effort had been made in this direction,
others. While some effort has been made in this direction,
relative to deployment, the evidence discloses that this has
been the subject of discussion with the Police Association
of Ontario for approximately eight years. The Chief and
Deputy Chief did not feel that it was likely to be changed
in the foreseeable future.
- Amendment to the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act,
Section 118 (3) (e) to permit transfer of officers
throughout the Region.
No such amendment has been sought. The Chief and Deputy
Chief left the impression that this would also have to be
the subject of negotiation with the Police Association of
Ontario before it could be realistically sought.
- That the Board of Commissioners of Police meet with
the Regional Council in order to clarify its role in
the provision of police services for the Region.
Chief Harris felt that such a meeting would be helpful, but
the Board had not yet done so. This inquiry would indicate
that such a meeting would not only be helpful, but essential
for a better understanding of the respective responsibility
of the Board and the Region.
A. (23) Close the Thorold Police Office.
The evidence indicates that this has not been achieved because
of political considerations. It was contended by the Chief
that it would lead to a saving and not diminish the policing
in the area, and, in fact , would increase the coverage as
the officer in the station could be relieved for patrol duty.
It is obvious that limitations on the free hand of the
Board have developed over the years through the evolution of
many small forces into one large regional force. The Ontario
Police Commission report of March, 1980, points out that one
of the basic problems to regional policing is balancing the
efficient use of manpower against the constraints imposed by
collective bargaining and political pressures.
The issue raised in this inquiry, presents on
the face of it, a real conundrum. The Board, which is
charged with the responsibility of adequately policing the
Region, has produced estimated purportedly necessary to
maintain the adequacy of the force, and is now met with the
demand by the Region to substantially reduce the estimates
which, according to Chief Harris, would thereby reduce the
adequacy of the force. To give effect to such demands
would, in essence, permit the Region to transgress upon one
of the prerogatives of the Board. The Regional Councillors,
however, are direct representatives of the electorate, and
as a whole are responsible for administering the Region’s
funds wisely.
Pursuant to the provisions of The Police Act, it
then falls to this Commission to try and resolve the differences
between the Board and the Region. The two areas of contention
being the budgetary estimates, and the adequacy of the force.
Both sides tendered evidence relative to the estimates, but
only the Board tendered evidence relative to the adequacy of
the force.
Counsel for the Region submits that the Region is not
sufficiently aware of the Board or force’s operation to deal.
adequately with the matter. While the undoubtedly is true
in part, a cursory view of the propose budget , and budgets
from the past, really indicate that approximately 85% of the
budget is for manpower. It is thus very apparent that any
reasonable reduction must mean a decrease in manpower. A
reduction of $2,100.000. means a very substantial reaction
in manpower. Chief Harris said that to achieve such reduction
would require releasing 62 constables.
It is apparent from the evidence of the Chief
and the Deputy Chief that, at least, some politicians feel
that policing, or, for that matter, even the appearance of
policing, cannot be reduced. This is supported by the
Exhibit 21. Specifically, an editorial writer from the
Niagara Falls Review, on September 7, 1979, had this to say:
“The quality and adequacy of police protection
in Niagara Region is the central issue here.
People should except the best protection to
make their lives – at least psychologically –
more secure and peaceful. If our politicians
don’t come to grips with this problem, they
are abdicating their responsibilities to the
electorate.
It is implicit in the position taken by the Region
that some members of Council must have felt that the Board
was guilty of largesse or that the force was overstaffed,
or performing unnecessary services. Whatever may have
been the rationale for their conclusions remains unknown,
because they failed to avail themselves of the opportunity
to so advise me.
The Board has the responsibility of trying to main-
tain a police force that is as adequate and efficient as is
reasonably possible. Where there is no evidence indicating
an abuse of that responsibility, and where there is no evidence
indicating the municipality’s inability to pay for the force,
the Board’s request for funding should be met by municipality.
In this instance, I am satisfied on all of the
evidence that the Board has followed reasonable principles
in their budgetary practices, and that the practices are in
keeping with the Board’s obligations. There was no evidence
Board’s budget at all, let alone by something in excess of
$2,000,000.00.
It is clear from the Board’s evidence that saving
of something in the range of $100.000.00 per annum could be
achieved by closing the police stations in Thorold and Port
Colbourne. Neither Counsel for the Region nor for the Board
urged that this route be followed. Their reluctance to pursue
this potential saving is obviously prompted by political con-
cerns. I can do no more than repeat the recommendations
made in the Ontario Police Commission report or March, 1980,
in this regard, but I, too, am mindful of the political
contraints on the Board to refrain from making these closures.
In conclusion, I find that the Board’s budgetary
estimates are reasonable in all of the circumstances, and I am
not prepared to interfere with same.
DATED at the City of Toronto
in the Municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto, this 21st day of
August A.D. 1981
Exhibits- Niagara Regional Police Force
- Letter from John E. Campbell, Niagara Region, to
Beverly P. Davies, April 15, 1981.
- Letter from Beverley P. Davies to John Campbell,
April 28, 1981.
- Letter from L.J. Quattrini to John Campbell,
July 9, 1981.
- Analysis of Gross Police and Regional Budget,
1971-1982, for the Region of Niagara.
- Analysis of Comparable Police Per Capita Expenditures
for Regional Municipalities, 1980-1981.
- The Regional Municipality of Niagara 1980 Operating
statement, four-week period ending December 31, 1980.
- Letter from L.J. Quattrini to W.J Dawson , Regional
Clerk , April 30, 1980
- Letter from L.J. Quattrini to John E. Campbell ,
September 25, 1980
- Letter from L.J Quattrini to John E. Campbell,
July 10, 1981
Analysis of Costs due to Civilianization.
Ontario Police Commission Report, March 1980
Analysis of Economic Data, 1970-1980
Estimates of Policing Costs Based on Guidelines –
Revised Schedule
Book 1 of Board Exhibits.
Book 2 of Board Exhibits
Book 3 of Board Exhibits
Book 4 of Board Exhibits
Book 5 of Board Exhibits
Book 6 of Board Exhibits
Comparison of Police Actual to Gross Budget Expenditures,
1971-1980
- Police Civilians and Regional Niagara Office and Clerical
(Comparative).
Memorandum from J.H. Yeo to J.E Campbell, March 12, 1981.
Effect of Civilianization on Staff Complement.
1981 Police Budget- Prior and After.
Letter from Tom McKay to Niagara Regional Board of
Commissioners of Police, November 20, 1979.