ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, AS AMENDED
BETWEEN:
Fred Parker
APPELLANT
-and-
Sergeant Randy Blakely (Quinte West Police Service)
RESPONDENT
DECISION ON MOTION
Panel: Krishan D. Uppal, Member Peter J. Doucet, Member
Hearing Date: April 29, 2004
Hearing Location:
Appearances:
George Bonn, Counsel for the Applicant
Joanne Mulcahy, Counsel for the Respondent
I. Introduction
These Motions brought by the Applicant for Leave to Appeal these three separate decisions of the Hearing Officer were heard on April 29, 2004.
The Applicant, Mr. Parker, seeks Leave to Appeal the following decisions:
The decision of January 30, 2002, denying a request to amend the charge by including a reference to the failure of Sergeant Blakely to bring the accused before a Justice of the Peace within the time prescribed by the Criminal Code;
The decision of the Hearing Officer of July 3, 2003 that Sergeant Blakely committed the offence of misconduct in denying Mr. Parker his rights to counsel without delay based on the number of hours found by the Hearing Officer to constitute such misconduct; and
The penalty decision of a reprimand of August 27, 2003.
- We find it helpful to reproduce the text of section 70 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 as amended, which states as follows:
70(1) A police officer or complainant may, within 30 days of receiving notice of the decision made after a hearing held under subsection 64(7) or 65(9), appeal the decision to the Commission by serving on the Commission a written notice stating the grounds on which the appeal is based.
(2) The Commission shall hold a hearing upon receiving the notice under subsection (1) from a police officer.
(3) The Commission shall hold a hearing upon receiving a notice under subsection (1) from a complainant if the appeal is from the finding that misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance was not proven clear and convincing evidence.
(4)The Commission may hold a hearing, if it considers it appropriate, upon receiving a notice under subsection (1) from a complainant with respect to an appeal other than an appeal described in subsection (3).
Motion for Leave to Appeal Decision not to Amend the Notice of Charge/Hearing
We agree with the rationale set forth by the Ontario Divisional Court in the decisions of Roosma v. Ford Motor Company (1988), 1988 CanLII 5633 (ON HCJDC), 66 O.R. (2d) 18 and McCann v. Ontario (Police Services Board of Inquiry) [1994], O.J. No. 202. In both of these decisions the Divisional Court held that there is no jurisdiction to appeal any Order other than a final Order. We adopt the analysis found in the Rules of Civil Procedure of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealing with interlocutory as compared with final Orders.
We are of the view based on these authorities that our jurisdiction found in section 70(1) of the Police Services Act to entertain an appeal only extends to an appeal from a final Order that substantially disposes of the issues before the Hearing Officer. We find support for this position as well in the wording of section 70(1) which makes reference to the words “decision made after a hearing”. We emphasize the words “