OCPC-ST-#13-01
2013 ONCPC 1161
ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF A JOINT APPLICATION UNDER S.116 OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, AS AMENDED, BY THE DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE ASSOCIATION AND THE DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SENIOR OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION, AS TO WHETHER THE OCCUPANT OF THE POSITION OF DEAN POLICE EDUCATION AND INNOVATION SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE AND, IF SO, A MEMBER OF THE DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SENIOR OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION
DECISION ON MOTION
Panel: David C. Gavsie, Associate Chair
Ontario Civilian Police Commission 250 Dundas Street West, Suite 605 Toronto, ON M7A 2T3 Tel: 416-314-3004 Fax: 416-314-0198 Website: www.ocpc.ca
Appearances
- Joshua S. Phillips, for both the Durham Regional Police Association and the Durham Regional Police Senior Officers’ Association
- Angela Khoury, for Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles
- Bill Clancy, for the Durham Regional Police Services Board
- Alexander Pettingill, for Durham College
Introduction
A joint application dated April 22, 2013 (the “Application”) under s. 116 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15 (the “PSA”), as amended has been filed with the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (the “Commission”) by the Durham Regional Police Association (“DRPA”) and the Durham Regional Police Senior Officers’ Association (“DRPSOA”) for determination as to whether the person occupying the position of Dean Police Education and Innovation (the “Position”) is a member of the Durham Regional Police Service (the “Service”) and if so, is the person occupying that position a member of the DRPSOA.
By letter dated June 6, 2013, Chief Ewles, Chief of the Service (“Chief Ewles”), advised the Commission that he believed his office would be an “affected party” pursuant to s. 116 of the PSA with regards to the Application.
By letter dated July 3, 2013, the Commission requested written submissions as to whether or not Chief Ewles should be made a party with respect to the Application.
Submissions were received from:
a) Angela Khoury on behalf of Chief Ewles;
b) Joshua S. Phillips on behalf of both the DRPA and the DRPSOA;
c) Bill Clancy on behalf of the Durham Regional Police Services Board (“DRPSB”); and
d) Alexander Pettingill on behalf of Durham College.
The Board and Durham College support Chief Ewles’ request. The DRPA and the DRPSOA request that the Commission deny Chief Ewles request.
Decision
- Chief Ewles’ motion to become a party in the Application is granted. His request for a determination that the DRPA is not an affected party within the meaning of s. 116 of the PSA is denied.
Submissions by Chief Ewles
In her submissions, Ms. Khoury made the following points:
a) Chief Ewles is an “affected person” with respect to the Application;
b) the Application pertains to an operational decision, not a decision by the DRPSB; and
c) both the DRPA and the DRPSOA agree that if the person occupying the Position is considered to be a member of the Service, that person would be a member of the DRPSOA. Therefore, the DRPA is not an affected party and should not be a party to the Application.
Submissions by the DRPA and the DRPSOA
In his submissions, Mr. Phillips made the following points:
a) Chief Ewles is not “affected” by the Commission’s determination;
b) Chief Ewles does not have an interest distinct from that of the DRPSB which would be a proper party;
c) to grant party status to Chief Ewles would unnecessarily complicate and delay the proceedings;
d) Chief Ewles is not entitled to party standing; and
e) the DRPA has not adopted the position that the person occupying the Position would be a member of the DRPSOA. That question will only be addressed if the person occupying the Position is determined to be a member of the Service.
Reasons
The Application raises a novel issue for the Commission under s. 116 of the PSA, different from the usual issue of whether a member of a police service belongs in the regular Association or the Senior Officer’s Association of the Police Service.
Section 116 of the PSA provides that “any affected person” may apply to the Commission. In the Commission’s view, a wide interpretation should be given to that term provided one can show an interest in the outcome of the matter.
Section 41(1)(a) provides the duties of a police chief, namely, administering the police force of which he or she is the chief and overseeing its operations. The chief of a police force has a direct and substantial interest in whether the person occupying the Position is a member of the Service.
With regard to the Application, the Commission could benefit from receiving Chief Ewles’ evidence and submissions which would then be considered, with others, in the Commission’s deliberations in deciding the issues.
Accordingly, Chief Ewles’ motion to become a party in the Application is granted. However, Chief Ewles becoming a party will not delay the process of the Application.
Regarding the DRPA being a party in the Application, whether the person occupying the Position is a member of the DRPA or the DRPSOA, will not be determined until the Commission rules on the Application.
It would be premature at this time to bar the DRPA from being a party.
Accordingly, that request by Chief Ewles is denied.
The Registrar shall contact the parties forthwith to set up a Pre-Hearing Teleconference. One of the issues to be determined in the Pre-Hearing will be whether or not OPSEU Local 354 should be served with notice of these proceedings.
DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 2013
David C. Gavsie Associate Chair, OCPC