The Police Act
The Ontario Police Commission
Citation: 1981 ONCPC 3902
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL of the 1981 Budget for the Town of Picton Police Force.
Before: W.T. McGrenere, Esq., Q. C., Member, Ontario Police Commission
Appearances: J. Ward, Esq., Counsel for the Town of Picton
R.G. Byers, Esq., Counsel for the Board of Commissioners of Police for the Town of Picton
Held: October 1 and 2* 1981
This is an appeal by the Council for the Town of Picton, herein- after referred to as “the Council”, for determination for the validity of the budget for the fiscal year, 1981, for the Town of Picton Police Force, as submitted by the Board of Commissioners of Police, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board”.
This appeal is brought pursuant to Section 14 (3) of The Police Act.
Historically, there has been a fairly good relationship between the Council and the Board. In 1975, however, the Council, mindful of the high cost of policing and the apparent in inequity of having to finance their own force while the balance of the County of Prince Edward enjoyed policing financed by the Province, sought some assistance from the Ontario Police Commission with a view to obtaining town policing financed by the Province.
At approximately the same time, Council requested that the Board consider reducing the town police force by one member. The Board and Council members have met repeatedly to try and resolve this issue, but it is obvious that neither side was capable of presenting sufficient information or persuasive argument to convince the other of the propriety of their position. Hence the necessity of an Ontario Police Commis- sion inquiry.
The provisions of Section 14 (3) of The Police Act do not necessarily confine the considerations by the Ontario Police Commission to the specific issues raised by Council. In this instance, however, the Council has made it clear, both through its members who have testified, and through the submission of its legal Counsel, that the only matter with which they take issue is the number of officers on the force. Indeed, the members of Council who testified were complimentary of the police force and its operation.
As one member of Council put it, “There’s a difference in perception”, between the Board and the Council. Since the Council is the body which ultimately must provide financing for the police force, it is the right and, indeed, in support of any measure which may save the taxpayer without depriving same of essential services.
The Council’s position in this matter was, for the most part, based on statistical information. Councillor Jarvis expressed the, view that he personally felt that the town was over-staffed with police officers and that he relied on the statistics only as ‘support for his personal view. Councillor Jarvis, both in examination-in-chief and under cross-examination, however, was unable to point to anything specific other than statistical information to support his conclusion.
The statistics relied upon by the Council were primarily the “ratio of the police officers to population”, and “the cost of policing per capita”. These statistics reveal that Picton enjoys a ratio of police officers to population of 2.1 per thousand. This compares to an average of approximately 1.75 for eight comparable towns. (Ex. 20). The per capita figure shown in Ex. 16 are somewhat higher, but the differential between Picton and the other comparables is approximately the same.
The Clerk Treasure’s analysis of costs of policing (Ex.21) attributes a higher per capita cost by adding a number of items into the police budget, which he believes rightfully belong there. There was no evidence to indicate how the other municipalities used as comparables treated these items.
The Council produced municipal crime statistics which indicate that the per captia incidence of crime compares closely with those of the other eight comparable towns.
Council produced statistics of town financing which indicate that the 1980 expenditure for policing amounted to 41.2 percent of the taxes levied for town purposes. (Ex. 19). The Board on the other hand produced statistics which indicated that the expenditures for the police amounted to 12.9 percent of the municipal revenue as compared to a rate 11.7 percent in twenty-two other comparable towns. The Board statistics further indicated that on the basis of the 1981 budget, the Town of Picton’s expenditures for the police would fall to 10.8 percent of municipal revenue, while the average of the other comparables would rise to 12.9 percent.
The Council further produced statistics indicating that Picton was becoming a town with a percentage of persons age 60 and over which was disproportionate to other communities. These statistics demonstrate that the concentration of persons in this age group in Picton was almost twice the percentage of this age group throughout Ontario.
Mr. Malcom Boyd, the Planning Director for the County of Prince Edward Planning Board, expressed a very real concern about the direction the town was taking about the dearth of people in the strong economic group between the ages of 25 and 44.
While the aforementioned statistics do support the Council’s concern for the high cost of policing, three of the four – members of Council testifying, nevertheless indicated that, in their opinion, the town could afford a nine-man police force.
Whether a police force is adequate for a munipality may have little bearing on whether that municipality can afford such a force. It is, however, very difficult to consider the adequacy of the force without relationship to municipality’s ability to pay for it. In this instance the issue is made easier because the majority of councillors testifying expressed the belief that the town could not afford such policing.
A variety of statistical information was produced by the Board which supported the Board’s contention that a nine-man force was required. The Chief read into the record his views and his statement was filed as an exhibit as well. (Ex. 2).
Mr. Mason, Chairman of the Board (Ex. 29) and Mayor Donald King testified in a similar vein and indicated that the Members of the Board had given serious consideration to the Council’s such a step would not be in the best interests of the community.
Evidence was led to demonstrated that the Town of Picton required a nine-man police force because it was not only the County Town but, as Malcolm Boyd described it, “It is the hub of County tourism.” Mr. Boyd described the Town as the service centre of the local tourist attractions, such as Sandbanks Park. He pointed out that approximately 140,000 to 200,000 persons came into the County in the July and August each year. Mr. Boyd and other witnesses made references to new A & P outlet, and a new Plaza in the Town of Picton. It was Mr. Boyd ‘s opinion that these outlets had a capacity far in excess of what the town required. He further indicated that the overall population same within one half-mile radius would total in excess of six little commercial development and must rely on the Town of Picton for its commercial needs.
In addition to the A & P outlet the new Plaza, there was also evidence of considerable quantities of liquor and beer. which were sold within the town. The quantities appeared to be far in excess by many, many times what reasonable rate of consumption would be in the town. This information also supports the contention that Picton is the hub of, not only tourism, but also services a very wide area of the whole County,
The criminal statistics would tend to suggest the latter as well when it appears that 60 percent of the offences committed in town, were so-called “outsiders”. (Ex 3).
Chief Fletcher, in his evidence, dealt at some length with- the deployment of his men, the criminal and highway traffic charges. that they produced, and the multitude of other activities as well as the time that is spent in transporting prisoners. He responded, at some length, to the criticism of his designating one of his men as detective. His decision to adopt this procedure had the approval of his Board and was obviously supported by the evidence of Judge Philip E. Baker, Senior Judge of the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) and by Richard D. Shea, the Crown Attorney for the County.
Statistics are of considerable help in putting an issue into perspective, but in a matter of this nature (i.e. the deduction of one member of a police force) a great deal of consideration must be given to the views and credibility of those charged with the responsibility of policing. In this instance, Mr. Mason and Mayor King. who gave evidence on behalf of the Board, both demonstrated a sincere belief that what they were doing was in the best interests of the community, and both Fletcher testified on cross-examination, that he could schedule his men in such a way that inly eight men would be required, but he did not feel that such deployment would be in the best interests of the citizens of community, nor of the officer who would be required to police singlehandedly from time to time.
A number of people from the community, Miss L. Cook, Messrs. D.L. Stanton, D.E. Strong, and M.A. Burrill, all testified in form various walks of life, but have common and daily exposure to a goodly number of the public. All these witnesses, with the exception of Miss Cook, had been familiar fir some time with the problem before this Commission, but none had been aware of any support for reduction in policing.
A letter from the Chamber of Commerce was filed, indicating a motion in support to the present policing. Similarly, a letter from a concerned person, Miss Lavinia Hamilton, in her capacity as an Executive Member of a Senior Citizens’ organization expressed dissent with any reduction of the police force. This was echoed by a letter from a concerned druggist.
It is difficult not to appreciate the concern and sincerity of the elected representatives, nor to sympathise with the before me, I am satisfied that the Board has taken a reasonable position, and I do not believe that the force should be reduced by one member.
DATED at the City of Toronto in the Municipality of Metro- politan Toronto, this 14th day of October A.D. 1981