ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF The Police Act, R.S.O., 1970, c. 351, and amendments thereto and Regulations thereunder, and

IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal to the Ontario Police Commssion by:

Constable Roger S. Ducharme Colchester South Township Police Force

DECISION

Panel: W.T. McGrenere, Esq., Q.C. Hearing Date: March 19, 1982 Hearing Location: Toronto, Ontario

Ontario Civilian Police Commission 250 Dundas Street West, Suite 605 Toronto, Ontario M7A 2T3 Tel: 416-314-3004 Fax: 416-314-0198 Website: www.ocpc.ca

Before: W.T. McGrenere, Esq., Q.C.

Appearances: Sergeant R. Thompson, Agent for the Appellant, who also appeared in person. Chief N.A. Armstrong, for the Respondent

Held: March 19, 1982

[1]. This is an appeal from the decision of the Committee of Council on the 10th day of September, 1981, wherein a conviction was registered against the appellant for Discreditable Conduct, in that he had on the 22nd day of July, 1981, been found guilty of an offence, punishable upon summary conviction under the Criminal Code (Canada) contrary to Section 1 (i) (g) contained in Regulation 680 (new 791) of the Police Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 351.

[2]. It was not disputed that Constable Ducharme had been convicted in Provincial Court in that he did without lawful excuse point a firearm to wit: a shotgun, at Gerald Grayer, Sr., contrary to Section 84 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time the conviction of Discreditable Conduct was registered against the appellant by the Committee of Council for Colchester South Township, the conviction from the Provincial Court was under appeal.

[3]. On the 6th day of January, 1982, His Honour Judge W.T. Hollinger allowed the appeal against the Provincial Court conviction and set same aside and entered a verdict of Acquittal.

[4]. Once the Provincial Court conviction had been set aside, there were no grounds upon which a conviction could be registered against the appellant under Section 1 (i) (g) of the Schedule Code of Offences in Regulation 680 (new 791) of The Police Act.

[5]. This appeal is therefore allowed and the conviction is quashed.

[6]. Sergeant Thompson, on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the Committee of Council ought to be responsible for the costs of the attendance of both himself and Constable Ducharme at the appeal of this matter in view of the fact that the Provincial Court conviction had been quashed and that no grounds existed to support a conviction under the Police Act. No one appeared on this appeal on behalf of the Committee of Council although Chief Armstrong was present but did not take issue with the submission made by Sergeant Thompson relative to the reversal of the Provincial Court conviction. I do not believe the Police Act authorizes the Commission to award costs in these circumstances. I would have thought, however, that the Committee of Council, as a matter of courtesy, would have indicated to both the Commission and Sergeant Thompson that they did not propose to dispute the appeal, thus the matter could have been dealt with by correspondence.

Dated at the City of Toronto, in the M u n i c i p a l i t y of Metropolitan Toronto, this 29th day of March A.D., 1982

W.T. McGrenere, Q.C. Member