Constable John D. Walker v. City of Belleville, 1991 CanLII 11276

ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended

BETWEEN:

CONSTABLE JOHN D. WALKER

Appellant

-and-

CITY OF BELLEVILLE

Respondent

DECISION

Hearing Date: Friday, April l9th, 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

Hearing Date: Friday, April l9th, l99l

Lois Roberts for the Police Services Board, City of Belleville in person Robert J. Reynolds for Constable Walker by Facsimile Machine and Telephone

1This is an Application to have the Commission reconsider an appeal decision rendered on March l5th, l990 by way of clarifying certain alleged ambiguities in that decision. It is not an Application to amend or change the decision.

2Because the parties are currently before the court with respect to certain alleged ambiguities in the decision, this Application was expedited and accordingly was heard by me in the presence of Lois Roberts for the Board. Robert J. Reynolds submitted his position in writing by Facsimile Machine and was present by way of a telephone connection during oral argument.

3Constable Walker was convicted of breach of confidence and dismissed. The dismissal was on May 9th, l989.

4Constable Walker appealed unsuccessfully to the Board of Commissioners of Police (as it then was) and finally to the Ontario Police Commission (as it then was). The decision of the Ontario Police Commission was rendered on March l5th, l990.

5Constable Walker had been dismissed in accordance with the penalty imposed at trial. The Commission's decision was: " ... we allow the appeal from penalty, quash the penalty imposed by the Trial Judge and order that Constable

6Walker be reduced from First Class Constable to Second Class

7Constable for a period of six months and that he then be reinstated."

8It seems to us that there is no ambiguity in that decision but the question left open is the effective date of the demotion. Thus, it seems to us, that what is sought by the parties is not a clarification of the Commission's decision but rather an interpretation of the law with respect to the effective date of the demotion. It is our view that this is a question that falls to be determined by the Courts not by the Commission. Having said that, however, I shall go on and express what the Commission understands the law to be in this regard.

9In our view the law is as stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Myllynen vs. Board of Commissioners of City of Peterborough et al reported at 1978 CanLII 1372 (ON CA), 20 OR(2d) 254. We understand that decision to mean:

1. that the effective date of the penalty is the date that the penalty was ordered by the Trials Officer (in this case a Judge).

2. that Constable Walker has had the status of a constable throughout and that the dismissal, having been quashed, cannot now be turned into a suspension without pay.

10The question was asked by Counsel whether the effective date of the reduction in salary flowing from a demotion from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable is to run commencing in May l989 or commencing with the Ontario Police Commission decision of March l990. While it matters not a hoot to us which date is selected by the parties it is our understanding, based on the Myllynen decision, that as a matter of law the effective date would be the date of imposition of the original penalty in l989.

11In conclusion, the Commission refuses to conduct a hearing to interpret its previous decision because we believe that the decision is clear and unambiguous and the questions raised by Counsel are questions of law not questions relating to what the Commission intended in its decision of March l9th, l990.