ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
PROVINCIAL CONSTABLE V.S. NOSE
Appellant
-and-
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE FORCE
Respondent
DECISION
Panel: W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman
Frank D'Andrea, Member
Hearing Date: March l2, l990
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
Presiding Members:
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman
Frank D'Andrea, Member
Appearances:
W. Michael Temple for the Appellant
John Zarudny for the Respondent
Hearing Date: March l2, l990
Constable Nose was convicted of discreditable conduct; the charge was based upon the fact that he had beenactively engaged in the operation of a sporting goods storein Espanola without the consent of the Commissioner. The penalty was the forfeiture of ten vacation days. Constable Nose appeals the penalty.
Constable Nose had been previously convicted of asimilar offence in connection with the same business and on that occasion was penalized three vacation days.
When the appeal opened we were presented with ajoint submission by the appellant and the respondentrecommending that the appeal from penalty be allowed; thatthe penalty imposed by the Trials Officer be quashed and thata penalty of five vacation days be substituted.
The joint submission was supported by a change ofpolicy by the O.P.P. Previously when an officer made anapplication pursuant to Section 6l of Regulation 79l for theCommissioner's consent to secondary employment there was anunwritten presumption that consent would not be grantedunless the officer could establish some need or justificationfor the employment. The present policy is that such applications are dealt with by a committee headed by a DeputyCommissioner.
Some people argue that the Ontario Police Commission ought not to condone secondary employment. These people argue that such things as the compressed work week, secondary employment, and paid overtime are seriously damaging to the professionalism and dedication of police officers. They argue that these policies encourage police officers to treat their policing duties as some form of parttime activity which is secondary in importance to some other vocation.
It is our view that the role of the Ontario Police Commission prohibits us from engaging in debate on such policy issues and restricts us to interpreting policy as found in the legislation. In this case we are dealing with Section 6l of Regulation 79l which provides as follows:
"6l. E xcept with the consent of the
Commissioner, no member of the Force
shall engage directly or indirectly in
any other occupation or calling, and
he shall devote his whole time and
attention to the service of the
Force".
- The policy in question appears to be that a police
officer "shall devote his whole time and attention to the
service ...". The present policy of the Ontario Provincial
Police Force was not put clearly before us and was not
challenged. Lacking a clear statement of what the present
policy is, and argument of Counsel with respect to its
validity, we expressly refrain from commenting upon it.
- Since there has been a change in the policy of the
Force with respect to secondary employment we reluctantly
accept the joint submission put before us and accordingly the
appeal from penalty is allowed; the penalty imposed by the
Trials Officer is quashed; we impose a penalty of the loss of
five vacation days.
DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1990.
per ______________________________________
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman