ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
CONSTABLE D.B. BATES
Appellant
-and-
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
Respondent
DECISION
Panel: W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman
T. Sher Singh, Member
Hearing Date: September l2, l99l
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
T. Sher Singh, Member
Appearances:
Michael Temple for the Appellant
Dennis Brown for the Respondent
Inspector Bryon C. Brown for the Force
Hearing Date: September l2, l99l
This is an appeal by Constable D.B. Bates fromconviction and penalty on a charge of deceit pursuant toSection l(d)(ii) of the Code of Offences.
The hearing opened with Mr. Temple making a Motionthat Mr. Singh disqualify himself and stand aside on theground of perceived bias. Mr. Temple filed two exhibits uponwhich his Motion is based.
Exhibit l is an article written by Mr. Singh andpublished in The Toronto Star on August l5th, l99l whichcriticizes the Special Investigations Unit of the Ministry ofthe Solicitor General.
Exhibit 2 is a copy of a letter addressed to theSolicitor General for the Province of Ontario and signed byRobert Morrison, the President of the Police Association ofOntario. The Police Association
The letter in question says, amongst other things:
"At the annual general meeting of the Police Association of Ontario a Resolution was unanimouslyadopted by the delegates in attendance expressing acomplete lack of confidence in Mr. Singh's abilityto sit as a member of the OCCPS and demanding hisremoval from that body."
"As a result of Mr. Singh's public expression ofhis views, it is clear to us that he can no longerperform these functions impartially and objectively. We, therefore, demand the removal of Mr. Singh fromthe Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services before the credibility of the Commission suffersany further in the eyes of the Ontario policecommunity."
- The letter in question refers specifically to thearticle filed as Exhibit l and also refers to other publicstatements by Mr. Singh:
"This is, of course, not the first time Mr. Singhhas made public statements and written articles forthe news media which clearly indicate a bias against police officers, including chiefs of police."
The other public statements of Mr. Singh, referredto in the letter from the PAO, were not put before us by Mr.Temple. Thus the Motion in question rests upon the statedperception of the Police Association of Ontario that Mr.Singh has a bias and upon the article printed in the TorontoDaily Star on August l5th, l99l.
Mr. Temple's Motion is based upon the overallimpression left upon a reader by the article of August l5th.His Motion is not based on any specific comment in that article.
The article in question is critical of the Directorof the Special Investigations Unit and, in particular, thesystem which the Director has put in place to govern theinvestigations which that Unit conducts. The mandate of the Unit is described in Subsection 5 of Section ll3 of the Police Services Act and is to "... cause investigations to beconducted into the circumstances of serious injuries and deaths that may have resulted from criminal offences committed by police officers."
The test to be applied has been described in thesewords: "What would an informed person, viewing the matterrealistically and practically - and having thought the matterthrough - conclude?"
Having read the article carefully, it is my opinionthat it, standing alone, would not lead an informed person,viewing the matter realistically and practically, and havingthought the matter through, to conclude that Mr. Singh has abias which would impede his ability to decide this appealobjectively and impartially.
For the above reasons I would dismiss the Motion.
DATED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1991.
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman