ONTARIO CIVILIAN COMMISSION ON POLICE SERVICES
IN THE MATTER OF an application for consent to the abolishment of the Prescott Police Service
Presiding Members:
Murray W. Chitra, Chair
Charles B. Rycroft, Member
Appearances:
Garry Dewar, Deputy Mayor, Town of Prescott Gordon Mills, Chair, Prescott Police Services Board F.A. (Rick) Bowie, Chief, Prescott Police Service
Brent Hill, Staff Sergeant, Grenville County Ontario Provincial Police Lynda A. Bordeleau, Solicitor for Prescott Police Services Board Jinan Kubursi, Solicitor for Ontario Provincial Police
Martin Doane, Solicitor for Prescott Police Association
Bruce Miller, Administrator, Police Association of Ontario
Gerry W. Ring, Reverend, former Chaplain, Prescott Police Service
Joseph Scott, Dispatcher, Prescott Police Service
Hearing Date: September 20, 2001
This is an application by the Town of Prescott (the “Town”) and the Prescott Police Services Board (the “Board”) pursuant to section 40 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 as amended (the “Act”) for consent to the abolition of the Prescott Police Service (the “Service”). This is for the purpose of having all policing in the Town provided by the Ontario Provincial Police (the “OPP”) in an integrated arrangement with Grenville County (the “County’).
Background:
Prescott is located on the northern shore of the St. Lawrence River in south- eastern Ontario. It is divided by two major roads - Highway 401 and County Road
- As well, Highway 416, better known as the Veterans Memorial Highway, starts just to the east at the Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge.
The Town is one of Ontario’s historic communities. It was established in 1784. In
1834 it was incorporated as one of the first police villages in Upper Canada. It is one of the four remaining separated towns in the province.
Prescott currently has a population of 4,480 residents residing in 1,955 households. It is an urban area of approximately 4.09 square kilometres with approximately 32 kilometres of roads.
The Town is part of Grenville County which also includes the Townships of Augusta, Edwardsburgh-Cardinal, North Grenville and the Village of Merrickville- Wolford.
The balance of the County has a total population of 29,619 residents living in
10,690 households. This area encompasses 1,446.59 square kilometres with
1404 kilometres of roads and 82 kilometres of provincial highways.
The Town is policed by the Service. Policing in the balance of the County is provided by the OPP.
Starting in 1998, the Town began to examine its policing arrangement. This was motivated in part by concerns about the ability of the Service to meet new provincial policing standards, significant projected capital expenditures (to upgrade the police station and communications system), a declining tax base, and a desire to reduce liabilities and costs.
On May 19, 1998, Town Council passed a resolution requesting a costing for the provision of police services from the OPP. Community interviews were conducted by the OPP at municipal offices in August. An OPP proposal was received on October 27, 1998. The Town decided to examine other options.
On June 5, 2000, Town Council passed another resolution requesting that the OPP update their earlier proposal. The revised document was received on October 11, 2000. A public meeting was held at the Royal Canadian Legion to obtain public comment.
On January 2, 2001, Town Council voted to accept the revised OPP proposal in principle and to commence negotiations. On January 8, 2001 the Board passed a similar resolution. Finally, on May 7, 2001, Town Council voted to accept one of the specific policing arrangements identified by the OPP and formally requested that the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (the “Commission”) conduct a hearing.
These resolutions, motions and a copy of the OPP proposal were forwarded to the Commission on May 31, 2001. Additional information was requested with respect to facilities and the status of severance discussions. This material was received by way of letters dated June 14 and June 28, 2001.
This information was tabled at the Commission’s regular meeting of July 9, 2001. It was agreed that a public hearing under section 40 of the Act would be convened to examine the proposal. This meeting was scheduled for September
20, 2001 at the IOOF Hall, 454 Henry Street West, Prescott. Notice of this fact was published in three local newspapers on August 29 and September 12, 2001.
The meeting was held as scheduled and ten presentations were made. As well, we requested additional written material that was subsequently received.
The Law:
Policing in Ontario is governed by the provisions of the Act.
Section 4(1) of the Act imposes upon municipalities the obligation to provide “adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs”. This may be accomplished in a number of different ways. A municipality may establish and maintain its own police force, enter into a joint policing arrangement with another municipality or contract for policing services from the OPP.
For a police service to be “adequate and effective”, it must have the necessary staff, administration, equipment, infrastructure and facilities to perform certain functions. According to section 4(2) of the Act these include crime prevention, law enforcement, assistance to victims of crime, public order maintenance and emergency response.
There are a number of provisions in regulation that describe these requirements in further detail and set out the responsibilities of various officials in ensuring that they are met. These are found at O. Reg. 3/99.
Once a municipal police force has been established, it can only be abolished for the purpose of putting in place one of the other policing options (i.e. OPP contract policing) after following the procedures set out in the Act. To assist parties involved in such endeavors, the Ministry of the Solicitor General sponsored the creation of a Guidebook and Resource Kit entitled “Restructuring Police Services in Ontario” (the “Guidebook”).
The Guidebook was the result of a cooperative effort amongst major stakeholders in the Ontario policing community to set an industry standard that would ensure consistency in municipal police restructuring. It has been endorsed by the OPP, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, OPP Association, Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, OPP Commissioned Officers Association, Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, Ontario Senior Officers Association and Ontario Public Service Employees Union.
The relevant provision in the Act is found at section 40. It reads:
40(1) A board may terminate the employment of a member of the police force for the purpose of abolishing the police force … if the Commission consents and if the abolition does not contravene this Act.
(2) The Commission shall consent to the termination of the employment of a member of the police force under subsection (1) only if,
(a) the member and the board have made an agreement dealing with severance pay or agreed to submit the matter to arbitration; or
(b) the Commission has made an order under subsection (3).
(3) If the member and the board do not make an agreement dealing with severance pay and do not agree to submit the matter to arbitration, the Commission, if it is the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the abolition of the police force … may order the member and the board to submit the matter to arbitration and may give any necessary directions in that connection.
If the Commission is of the view that these requirements have been met, then it may authorize a municipality to enter into a contract with the Solicitor General under section 10 of the Act for policing to be provided by the OPP.
The Issues:
The nature of this scheme is self-evident. It is to ensure that no municipal police force is abolished unless arrangements are in place that will satisfactorily meet the policing needs of the community in question. Any new arrangements must provide for appropriate staff, equipment and facilities to ensure adequate and effective policing. In addition no member of a municipal police force may be terminated without steps being taken to allow for proper severance.
There are two fundamental issues to be dealt with. First, does the proposed new arrangement appear to provide adequate and effective police services that meet the needs of the community? In this respect, the Commission shall receive and review the proposal that has been accepted by Council and the Board and consider any public comments and submissions.
Given that the proposal in question not only calls for the abolition of the Service, but to replace it with an arrangement that would integrate the policing resources of the complete County, it is necessary to examine the proposal in total.
The next issue is whether, under the proposal, the current members of the police service, that is the subject of the abolition, are being dealt with in a fair and reasonable basis. If any member is liable to termination as a consequence of the abolition, the question then becomes whether the parties have reached an agreement with respect to severance or have consented to having any outstanding matters referred to arbitration. If so, our involvement in this issue would be at an end.
In cases where there is no agreement either with respect to settlement or arbitration, the Commission may direct the parties to arbitration. This, however, is only in those cases where, in all of the circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the abolition to proceed.
It should be noted that under section 40, the Commission does not decide between alternative proposals or assess which method of providing policing services will be most economical or otherwise preferred. Those decisions rest solely with the local community through the appropriate municipal council and police services board.
Further, it is not the function of the Commission to determine what may or may not be an appropriate severance agreement. This function rests solely between the bargaining parties and, failing an agreement, arbitration.
Current Policing Arrangement:
The present Prescott Police Service was established in 1957. Prior to that date policing in the community was provided by the OPP.
The Service’s complement consists of eleven uniformed officers and six civilian employees. These include:
1 chief of police
2 sergeants
8 constables
4 full time civilian dispatchers
2 part time civilian dispatchers
Given the current population of the Town, this represents a uniformed officer to citizen ratio of 1:407 (11 officers: 4,480 citizens). The supervisor to constable ratio is 1:2.6.
The Service provides twenty-four hour, seven days a week coverage. Officers work from a facility located at 302 Centre Street. The Service operates its own dispatch. Court proceedings for matters arising in the Town are generally held in
Brockville. The Service uses a third party computerized records management system.
The Service is equipped with:
1 marked police vehicle
1 community services van
1 breathalyzer and 1 roadside screening device
1 radar device
1 long gun
All officers use the Sig Sauer P229 sidearm.
Over the past three years the force has averaged 2,934 calls annually for service. The three-year average for reported criminal offences is 471. This represents an officer to crime ratio of 1:43 (11 officers: 471 criminal offences).
As noted earlier, the balance of the County is policed by the OPP. A total of 51 uniformed officers and 5 civilian employees are assigned to the Detachment area. Of this number 37.24 uniformed officers and 4.25 civilian staff are dedicated to municipal policing. This includes:
4.72 sergeants
.79 staff sergeant
31.73 constables
2.77 clerical support
1.48 caretakers
Given the current population this represents a uniformed officer to citizen ratio of
1:795 (37.24 officers: 29,619 citizens). The supervisor to constable ratio is
1:5.75.
Grenville County OPP officers are equipped with:
17 marked and 4 unmarked police vehicles
2 community vans
2 personal watercraft and 2 snowmobiles
3 breathalyzers and 6 roadside screening devices
5 spike belts
5 radar devices
14 long guns
All OPP officers are also equipped with the Sig Sauer P229 sidearm.
The past three-year average calls for service is 7,957 with an average of 2,060 reported criminal offences. Given that this combines both provincial and municipal matters this represents an officer to crime ratio of 1:40 (2,060 reported criminal offences for 51 officers).
Taken in total, the combined current municipal police resources in the County (Prescott Police Service and OPP) is 48.24 uniformed officers. This represents a current overall officer to citizen ratio of 1:707 (48.24 officers: 34,099 citizens).
The OPP operates throughout the County from two main facilities. Officers policing the Township of North Grenville and the Village of Merrickville-Wolford work from a Satellite Detachment located at 2722 County Road 43 in Kemptville. This is a 250.8 square metre building constructed in 1969. It provides space for a sergeant, clerical support and constables. As well, it has an interview room, storage space for evidence, a breathalyzer room, firearm storage, a backup generator and one cell. The building is open to the public during normal business hours. It is equipped with an external phone with a direct link to dispatch.
There is a Community Policing Office in the Village of Merrickville-Wolford. It consists of an office located adjacent to municipal offices at 317 Brock Street West in Merrickville Ward. The office is approximately 155 square feet and is telephone and computer equipped.
Officers policing the Townships of Augusta and Edwardsburg-Cardinal work from an Administrative and Operational Detachment located at 1040 Edward Street North in the Town of Prescott. This 382.05 square metre building was
constructed in 1978. It is equipped with:
two cells (most prisoners are held at the Brockville Jail)
interview/breathalyzer room
offices for sergeant, detachment commander, clerical support and detectives
shared office for community services and court case management
general work area for constables
storage for officers firearms and seized/found property or evidence
male locker room
female locker area (in female washroom)
There is an external phone with a direct line to dispatch for off-hours.
There is a Community Policing Office located in the Township of Edwardsburgh- Cardinal at municipal offices on Highway 2 in Cardinal. It is approximately 110 square feet. It has a telephone and a computer is being installed.
Marine policing for the Prescott area (including the St. Lawrence River) is the responsibility of the Leeds County OPP Detachment in Brockville. Three officers
are assigned fulltime to such duties and operate a 24-foot Seaswirl vessel. Further resources are available from the Odessa area. As well, there is a Canadian Coast Guard Base located in Prescott itself.
Communications for the County is from the Perth Communications Centre. It is staffed by 20 communications officers, 6 sergeants, a staff sergeant and a technologist. The Centre operates 24 hours a day.
The OPP Communications system is a hybrid microwave system. It is failsafe with both battery and diesel generator power backup. The Centre uses Intergraph/Computer Aided Dispatch (I/CAD) and monitors OPP Simplex and the Provincial Common channel. All incoming and outgoing telephone and radio communications are recorded.
All officers are equipped with portable radios while on patrol. These are connected to in-car repeaters. This permits not only portable to portable communications, but also extended connection with the Communications Centre.
Both Prescott and the County have 911 service. As well, there is a toll free general number and phone access for the hearing impaired.
The Proposed Arrangement:
The proposed policing arrangement was described to us in detail by Staff Sergeant Brent Hill. Essentially, what is being advanced is the integration of the Town into the OPP policing structure for the County.
The integrated County arrangement would consist of 61 uniformed officers and 6 civilians (four clerical staff and two caretakers). They would also be supported by
65 auxiliary officers deployed from the Counties of Leeds, Lanark and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. They would provide the County with twenty-four hour, seven days a week policing.
Of this complement 12.86 uniformed officers would be allocated to provincial policing. This is a slight reduction from the current level of 13.76 uniformed officers.
The remaining officers would be allocated to municipal policing. This would mean
48.14 uniformed officers for a total population of 34,099. This would represent a ratio of officers to citizens of 1:708 and a supervisor to constable ratio of 1:9.
A number of the officers and staff in the proposed integrated County complement would be dedicated to policing in the Town. This would include 10.90 uniformed officers and 1.08 civilian staff. The breakdown would be as follows:
.18 staff sergeant
.72 sergeant
10 constables
.72 clerical support
.36 caretakers
This would represent a dedicated officer to citizen ratio in the Town of 1:411 (10.90 officers: 4,480 citizens).
The proposal calls for the continuation of the current patrol zones in the County. There are presently three such zones operating from the Kemptville Satellite Detachment. They are the Village of Merrickville, the Town of Kemptville and the remainder of the Township of North Grenville.
There are currently two patrol zones operating out of the Prescott Administrative/Operational Detachment. These are the Townships of Augusta and Edwardsburgh-Cardinal. It is proposed to add a third zone to this Detachment that would encompass the Town.
Two officers would be scheduled for duty in this new Town of Prescott patrol zone at any given time. While officers are in court or outside their zone for any other reason, emergency coverage and assistance can be provided by other officers in neighboring zones.
Officers in the County would continue to operate on 12 hour rotating shifts. Officers responsible for municipal policing would be divided into four platoons. Each would be under the direction of a Sergeant/Team Leader.
The current Town municipal officers would be relocated to the Administrative/Operational Detachment building at 1040 Edward Street North in Prescott. Minor modifications are proposed to the building. This includes additional lockers and storage space for weapons. As well, modifications to cells in both the Kemptville and Prescott locations (including video monitoring) are scheduled for completion by the end of next year. Further enhancements are planned depending on the availability of funds in the spring, 2002 budget.
The two current Community Policing Offices would continue. As well, it is anticipated that the arrangements for court, detention and marine patrol from Brockville would remain the same.
It is proposed that the present OPP dispatching and communications arrangement using the Perth Communications Centre be extended to the Town. It is anticipated that the current staff at the Centre are sufficient to manage the increased volume of calls.
It is proposed that all CPIC files for the Service would be transferred to the Eastern Region OPP Centralized CPIC Unit. Members of the Service joining the OPP would be trained on the Niche Records Management System. All Prescott police records would be maintained in the same manner as other OPP files.
It is proposed that Prescott Police Service officers who would be joining the OPP would participate in joint orientation patrols, receive training in the telecommunications system and attend a one-week orientation course at the OPP Academy in Orillia.
We are informed that all uniformed members of the Prescott Police Service, with the exception of Constable Darren Davis, will be offered employment conditionally to meeting the requirements of the Act. Further, the OPP indicates that it plans to offer employment to one civilian currently employed with the Service. This individual would join two other clerical staff who would be working at the Prescott Detachment.
Decision:
Is the integrated proposal as presented likely to provide the Town of Prescott and
Grenville County with adequate and effective police services?
There is not a precise formula for determining what constitutes adequate and effective police services. However, certain sections of the Act, regulations, Guidebook and prior Commission decisions, provide assistance. In particular, section 4(2) of the Act states:
4(2) Adequate and effective police services must include, at a minimum, all of the following police services:
Crime prevention.
Law enforcement.
Assistance to victims of crime.
Police order maintenance.
Emergency response.
Section 4(3) sets out that a municipality must provide “all the infrastructure and administration necessary for providing such services, including vehicles, boats, equipment, communications devices, buildings and supplies”.
Commission decisions in various contexts have articulated different tests to assess or determine adequacy. At page 15 of Municipality of Chatham-Kent (14
August, 1998) we stated:
Broadly these tests are comparative or alternative. The comparative tests may be applied historically or geographically. Where it is applied historically, the current or proposed staffing level is compared to that which the municipality has received in the past. If past staffing levels were considered adequate the proposed or current level is normally presumed to be adequate and effective.
Where the comparative test is applied geographically the proposed or current staffing level is measured against those found in communities of similar size or needs. If the levels are considered adequate in those communities, a similar level proposed is generally presumed to be adequate.
How do these tests apply to this application?
Does the Proposed Arrangement Provide Adequate and Effective Police
Services?
At the present time, the Town and surrounding regions of the County are policed by two different services. The Town deploys 11 uniformed officers for an officer to citizen ration of 1:407. In the surrounding County the OPP deploys 37.24 uniformed officers for an officer to citizen ratio of 1:795.
Based on the above, the two forces collectively deploy 48.24 officers to provide municipal police services to a total population of 34,099 citizens. This represents an overall County officer to citizen ratio of 1:707.
It is proposed to integrate these resources into a new structure consisting of
48.14 uniformed officers. This would represent a proposed overall County officer to citizen ratio of 1:708.
Finally, it is proposed that the Town would continue to have civilian oversight or governance in the form of a section 10 police services board. We are advised that funds have been allocated for member honorariums and training.
Further, of this total, a number of officers would be dedicated to a Town patrol zone. These 10.90 officers would represent a Town officer to citizen ratio of
1:411.
On the face of it, the proposal would appear to provide for a continuation of the historical level of policing in both the Town and County. Twenty-four hour coverage would continue. The existing patrol zones would be maintained. There is no practical reduction in service. Further, it might be argued that with the conversion of two Town management positions (i.e. chief of police and one sergeant) to constables (from 8 to 10 constables) that front line policing is
enhanced. Certainly two officers would be assigned to the Town at any given time.
The primary difference in the proposed arrangement is the loss of four full-time and two part time dispatchers in Prescott. However, their role or function will be subsumed in the larger operations of the Perth Communications Centre. We have previously examined that Centre in Town of Renfrew (25 August, 2000).
How does this compare with communities of a similar size and character? The Commission has recently approved integrated policing arrangements for a number of mixed rural and urban communities in eastern Ontario. In Township of North Glengarry (15 October, 1999), we approved an officer to citizen ratio of
1:774 (80 officers: 61,951 citizens) for the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. In Town of Deseronto (23 April, 2001), we approved an officer to citizen ratio of 1:801 (55.42 officers: 44,403) for the County of Lennox and Addington. In Town of Renfrew, we authorized an integrated policing arrangement for several municipalities with an officer to citizen arrangement of
1:781 (32 officers: 25,003 citizens).
There are other factors that also support this conclusion that are worth noting. First, the Commission examined and approved the policing arrangement for the northern portion of the County in Town of Kemptville (6 March, 1998). Second, the officer to crime ratios in the Town and County (1:43 and 1:40) are both reasonable and manageable. Third, the proposed supervisor to constable ratio of
1:9 is within the acceptable range. See Town of Goderich (October 27, 1997).
Finally, the proposed arrangement has a number of obvious advantages for the
Town. These include:
access to a pool of 65 OPP auxiliaries;
dedicated officers will continue to be deployed in Town; and
access to OPP Regional resources.
Accordingly, we are satisfied that the proposed staffing arrangement should allow for adequate and effective policing.
We would, however, like to register one caution. We note that the northern portion of the County is experiencing substantial growth. Population increased
24% between 1991 and 1996. The official plan for that area projects a further doubling over the next 17 years. It will be important to ensure that future policing
resources keep pace with what will be an obvious increased demand for services.
As noted earlier, the proposal calls for the current Town officers and one civilian to be moved into the OPP Administrative and Operational Detachment Centre at
1040 Edward Street North. The current Satellite Detachment in Kempville and two Community Policing Offices would continue to operate.
Acknowledging the differences in these three communities, it seems to us that the proposed staffing level for Grenville County compares very favorably with other approved eastern Ontario arrangements and is certainly well within the acceptable range.
We toured the Administrative and Operational Detachment. The building would appear to be suitable for the intended purpose. We note, however, that renovations are required to the cell areas (i.e. suicide proof bars, video monitoring and fire extinguishers). We are pleased to see that these modifications have been fast tracked for both Prescott and Kemptville. In our view they are required.
We also note that both the Prescott and Kemptville facilities in the near future will need additional space for office space and storage. There are no showers at the Administrative and Operational Detachment. The lockers and change area for female officers are in a washroom. This may be acceptable on a short-term basis but should not continue over the long term. In this regard, we also have concerns with the future utility of the Kemptville Satellite Detachment. If population growth continues as expected this 1969 bungalow will either require extensive renovations or replacement. Some long term planning in this regard is required.
As noted earlier, we have already examined the OPP Communications Centre in Perth in Town of Renfrew. We have no reason to believe that the 20 communicators, six supervisors and one technician at that facility could not manage the additional 2,900 annual calls for service that will result for the addition of the Town to the system.
Accordingly, we are prepared to approve the proposed communications arrangement. However, as we indicated in our earlier decision, we wish to make it clear that this approval is based on the communication function continuing as described during the life of a contract. Any significant changes proposed during that period must be brought to the Commission’s attention in advance.
We are satisfied the proposal will allow for sufficient equipment, vehicles and boats. Overall, assuming that the requirements referred to above are met, we believe that the proposed arrangement will provide the necessary administration and infrastructure to allow for adequate and effective policing in the Town and other areas of the County.
Are Staff Members Subject to Termination Being Dealt With on a Fair and
Reasonable Basis?
That brings us to the important issue of severance and termination. On this matter, there appears to be a number of issues in dispute.
We are advised by Ms. Bordeleau that all members of the Service have been provided with termination notices. We have been provided with copies of these documents.
We are informed that the Board and Chief Bowie have agreed to a process to determine his severance entitlement. There was optimism expressed that this will result in an agreement.
There is currently a collective agreement in place between the Board and the civilian and uniformed members of the Prescott Police Association. This agreement was reached on October 30, 2001 following interest arbitration.
Article 19 of the agreement with civilian members identifies specific amounts to be paid to both full-time and part-time civilians in the event of disbandment. The agreement for uniformed members contains no such formulae. Rather, Article 20 identifies a series of issues to be negotiated. Such negotiations have not been concluded. Indeed, at the time of these proceedings, discussions had not even commenced.
Staff Sergeant Brent Hill advised us that the OPP is prepared to offer employment to nine uniformed members of the Service. We are informed that this offer is in accordance with OPP policy reflected in the Guidebook and conditional upon those officers “meeting the requirements of the Police Services
Act and upon approval of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for disbandment of the Prescott Police Service”.
The OPP is also prepared to offer employment to one current civilian employee of the Prescott Police Service to perform administrative duties at the Prescott Administrative and Operational Detachment. The selection of this individual will proceed once disbandment is allowed.
We are advised by Staff Sergeant Hill that the OPP is not prepared to offer employment to Constable Darren Davis. This requires some explanation.
We are informed that Constable Davis was previously employed by the OPP. He joined that service in 1987. In 1994, while he was assigned to the Spanish River Detachment (later the Blind River Detachment), he was the subject of a public complaint. Constable Davis was placed on restricted duties.
As a further result, in August of 1994, Constable Davis was the subject of several criminal charges. This also generated eight disciplinary allegations of discreditable conduct. The disciplinary charges were stayed pending the
outcome of the criminal proceedings. Constable Davis was suspended from all duties.
In January of 1997, the Crown dropped all criminal proceedings against Constable Davis. The OPP, however, decided to proceed with the eight disciplinary charges. That hearing commenced in January of 1998. It was further delayed. For various reasons, Constable Davis agreed to leave the OPP. A compensation package was negotiated and Constable Davis resigned effective May 25, 2000.
A few weeks later, on June 13, 2000 Constable Davis was interviewed for a position with the Prescott Police Service. He was offered a job. It would appear that this decision was based in part upon favorable character references from the OPP.
We are advised by the OPP that they are not prepared to offer employment to
Constable Davis because:
implicit in his agreement to resign from the OPP was the understanding that he would not be rehired;
he was the subject of eight outstanding serious disciplinary charges that were never concluded;
and as a result he did not meet section 43(1)(d) of the Act which requires police officers to be “of good moral character and habits”
We were not provided with a copy of Constable Davis’ separation agreement from the OPP.
Mr. Doane, on behalf of the Prescott Police Association, takes strong issue with a number of aspects of the OPP position. First, he draws our attention to the
section of the Guidebook dealing with employment. It states:
The OPP will offer employment to all serving uniformed municipal police officers who meet the requirements of the Police Services Act, however, the Commissioner reserves the right to review the suitability of any officer charged with a criminal offence. A municipal officer who is on disability leave at the time of disbandment of a municipal police force will be offered employment with the OPP on satisfactory evidence from a medical practitioner of the member’s suitability to return to duty.
He notes that all offers of employment with the OPP are conditional on “these officers meeting the requirements of the Act”. Some of the officers in question are currently being accommodated in their work arrangement for medical reasons and one is on disability leave.
Because of the conditional nature of the offer and no information with respect to the willingness of the OPP to continue any work related accommodation for specific individuals, it is difficult for the Association to conclude severance arrangements.
In the case of Constable Davis Mr. Doane argues that:
there was nothing either implicit or explicit in his agreement to resign from the OPP that suggested that he would not be rehired with the OPP;
he has never been convicted of any criminal or disciplinary offence;
he is not currently charged with any criminal offence;
he strongly denied the disciplinary allegations brought against him while a member of the OPP;
he is not on disability leave;
he is an officer in good standing with the Service;
the Service obviously viewed him to be of “good moral character and habits” (otherwise they would not have offered him employment); and
Even if this were not the case, she argues that the Commission has no authority under either sections 22 or 40 of the Act to direct the OPP to offer employment to any person. She observes that the procedures reflected in the Guidebook are not law, but rather policies intended to ensure the maintenance of professional standards and consistency in municipal police restructuring.
Ms. Kuburski asserts that the Commission’s authority under section 40 is limited to ensuring that severance arrangements are addressed. If not, then she suggests that the jurisdiction of the Commission is confined to ordering arbitration. She notes that such an order can only be directed at the Board and its employee (and not the OPP). She points out that Ms. Bordeleau has clearly stated that the Board has agreed to accept its severance obligations to Constable Davis, should we consent to the disbandment of the Service.
Ms. Kuburski further submits that there is no authority under the Act for the Commission to hold a hearing, or any other process, to inquire into the matter of the OPP refusal to offer Constable Davis employment. She suggests that Constable Davis’ remedy lies not with the Commission, but elsewhere. Presumably, this means some form of civil suit.
Ms. Bordeleau, in large degree, supports the position put forward by Ms. Kuburski. She notes that the dispute here is between Constable Davis and the OPP. She suggests that the only authority that the Commission has under section 40 is to order arbitration.
Conclusion
We agree that the Guidebook is neither law nor regulation. That being said, we are of the view that the section of the protocols dealing with future employment, upon restructuring, reflects an understanding between policing stakeholders that is central to orderly municipal police restructuring.
We do not have all the details of the events leading up to Constable Davis’ departure from the OPP. Nor do we have a copy of his severance agreement. However, it is clear to us on the basis of what has been presented, that there is a real issue as to whether or not the relevant provisions of the Guidebook have been properly applied in his case.
We also note that:
there is no agreement with respect to severance pay between the uniformed members of the Association and the Board; and
there is no clear agreement between the parties about what matters fall within the proper scope of an arbitration order.
he was only offered employment with the Service after senior officials with the OPP were contacted and spoke positively on his behalf.
Given the above, Mr. Doane asserts that under any reasonable interpretation of the Guidebook, the OPP has no justification to refuse employment to Constable Davis.
Mr. Miller, on behalf of the Police Association of Ontario, agrees with this position. He states that the Guidebook was designed to reduce confusion and anxiety in police restructuring by establishing clear rules. This was done in the best interests of both policing and the public. He indicates that it is clear that Constable Davis meets the requirement for employment with the OPP. He urges that we not permit the disbandment of the Service until such employment is offered. He argues that this is warranted given the need to preserve the integrity of the procedure that has been developed in the best interests of police
This relates in part to the situation of Constable Davis, the conditional nature of the offers of employment and the uncertain status of officers on restricted duties or disability leave.
Section 40(3) of the Act states:
40(3) If the member and the board do not make an agreement dealing with severance pay and do not agree to submit the matter to arbitration, the Commission, if it is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the abolition of the police force … may order the member and the board to submit the matter to arbitration and may give the necessary directions in that connection.
Given the above noted unresolved issues, we are of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to permit the abolition of the Prescott Police Service.
However, we are sensitive to the great efforts that have taken place to date to ensure a successful restructuring of policing in both the Town and County. This is clearly a matter of significant importance to the community. There has been considerable uncertainty for members of the Service. Rather than seeing this uncertainty continue and the effort go to waste, we would be prepared to reconsider this decision if certain requirements can be met.
Specifically:
That Constable Davis and the Ontario Provincial Police agree to submit to binding arbitration the question of whether or not Constable Davis meets the requirements of the Police Services Act for the purpose determining whether or not he is entitled to an offer of employment under the terms of the Guidebook; and
The OPP advise all uniformed members of the Service whether or not they have unconditional offers of employment.
The process of determining which civilian member of the Service will be offered employment with the OPP commence forthwith.
If these requirements are not acceptable then disbandment cannot proceed. Assuming these requirements can be agreed upon by January 14, 2002, it would also be our expectation that:
- The Board, Association and Chief conclude severance discussion agreements by February 14, 2002 or all outstanding matters proceed immediately to arbitration.
personnel and communities across the province.
Mr. Doane also argues, on behalf of the Prescott Police Association, that we should refuse to permit the disbandment of the Service. In the alternative, he suggests that we decide the issue of whether or not the OPP has applied the principles identified in the Guidebook to Constable Davis on the basis of the information before us. Other suggestions include holding a separate hearing into the matter or requiring the issue to proceed to arbitration.
Ms. Kubursi, on behalf of the OPP disagrees. She asserts that the OPP has in good faith properly applied the provisions of the Guidebook to Constable Davis.
Further, with respect to adequacy, abolition is conditional upon:
Proposed renovations to the cell areas of the Kemptville and Prescott Detachment buildings be completed by December 31, 2002 and the Commission is provided with confirmation that these renovations have taken place.
That both short and long term planning examine the need for additional space at the Kemptville and Prescott Detachments buildings.
That no changes occur during the term of the contract to the communications and dispatch arrangements from the Perth Communications Centre without the prior approval of the Commission.
The proposal, as described above, is not to be altered without consent in writing from the Commission.
DATED THIS 5th DAY OF DECEMBER 2001.
Murray W. Chitra Charles B. Rycroft
Chair, OCCPS Member, OCCPS