ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF the Police Act, R.S.O., 1980, c. 381, and Amendments thereto and Regulations thereunder;
- and –
IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal to the Ontario Police Commission by:
CONSTABLE ALLAN BARRETT HALDIMAND-NORFOLK REGIONAL POLICE FORCE
DECISION
Panel: W. T. McGrenere, Esq., Q.C. John P. MacBeth, Esq., Q.C.
Hearing Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 1984
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. John P. MacBeth, Esq., Q.C.
Appearances: Joseph Dubeck, Esq., Counsel for the Appellant
The Appellant
W. Graydon Sheppard, Esq., Counsel for the Haldimand-Norfoik Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, Respondent
Arthur McCart, Esq., Chief of Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Force.
Held: Wednesday, February 15th, 1984
[1]. This is an appeal by Allan Barrett from the decision of the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police dated 16th of September, 1983, upholding the decision of Chief Arthur McCart dated the 10th of December, 1981 wherein the appellant was found guilty of three charges under what is now Sec. 1 (d)(ii) of the Schedule Code of Offences as appears in Regulation 791, R.R.O., 1980 and ordered dismissed from the Police Force.
[2]. The thrust of the appellant's position was thatChief McCart's conduct during the hearing raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.
[3]. Counsel for the appellant referred to the following evidence in support of this contention; that the Chief admitted knowing the mother-in-law of the appellant; that a more aggressive attempt to locate a missing notebook should have been demanded by the Chief and that page 568 being the final page of the transcript of evidence reports Chief McCart as saying, "This hearing is concluded as you are aware and there will be no use of appeal".
[4]. In our opinion it would have been improbable in consideration of the facts had Chief McCart not known the mother-in-law and we found no reason to suggest his knowledge of her gave any likely appearance of bias.
[5]. The notebook was not a sine qua non item of evidence.
[6]. There was sufficient other evidence for Chief McCart to decide as he did, whether or not the missing book contained the evidence alleged by the defence. Inability to locate the book could rest equally with either side. We do not find that prolonging a search for a piece of evidence which we do not regard as crucial indicated or suggested bias.
[7]. At no time during the hearing was Chief McCart requested to disqualify himself.
[8]. At the commencement of this hearing an affidavit of Chief McCart, dated 14th February, 1984, was filed, paragraph 3 and 4 of which reads as follows:
I have examined page 568 of the transcript of the proceedings, wherein the following words appear: "This hearing is concluded as you are aware and there will be no use of appeal."
The foregoing portion of the transcript is inaccurate. In fact, the words spoken by me to the best of my recollection were: "This hearing is concluded. As you are aware, there are avenues of appeal."
[9]. We accept this affidavit.
[10]. We have read the transcripts of the hearing and we believe it would be difficult to reach a conclusion other than that reached by Chief McCart.
[11]. Charge 2(a) and Charge 2(b) as set out in the Charge Sheet refer to the date of offence as 4th day of May, 1981. Both parties agree that this is a wrong date. The correct date was 17th April, 1981. The evidence indicates that no one was misled or prejudiced by the wrong date reference The error was continued by Chief McCart in his decision. We do not believe that anything turns on the wrong date being referred to. Counsel for the respondent requested leave to amend the date to the 17th of April, 1981 and his motion to this affect is granted.
[12]. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the appellant made reference to a Notice of Motion he had filed for leave to introduce fresh evidence, but stated that he had abandoned this application.
[13]. For the reasons stated we dismiss the appeal.
DATED at the City of Toronto in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, this 29^TH^ day of February, A.D. 1984.
W. T. McGrenere, Esq., Q.C.
John P. MacBeth, Esq., Q.C.