Ontario Civilian Police Commission
File: 2015 ONCPC 21
Case Name: Application for Consent to Reduce Midland Police Service
In the Matter of An Application for Consent to the Reduction of the Midland Police Service under section 40 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, as amended
Decision
Panel: Roy B. Conacher, Q.C., Vice-Chair Winston Tinglin, Member
Public Meeting Date: August 20, 2015 Meeting Location: Midland, Ontario
Appearances: George Dixon, Chair, Midland Police Services Board; Chief Michael C. Osborne, Chief of Midland Police Service; Chief William B. Sornberger, Chief of Owen Sound Police Service; Alexander J. Sinclair, Counsel for Midland Police Services Board; Caroline V. (Nini) Jones, Counsel for Midland Police Association; Barbara Edwards, Dispatcher Member of Midland Police Association; William Gordon, Member of the Midland Police Association; Denise Hurlbut, Member of the Public; Roy Ellis, Member of the Midland Police Services Board; Kim Pelletier, Dispatcher Member of Midland Police Association
A. Background
1This is an application (the “Application”) submitted to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (the ”Commission”) by the Midland 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”). The Board is seeking the Commission’s consent to reduce the civilian members of the Midland police force.
2The Board requests the Commission’s consent to terminate the employment of eight (8) Civilian Radio Operators (CROs), (the “Affected Employees”), consisting of eliminating four (4) full-time CRO positions and four part-time CRO positions. The proposal is that such terminations be made and positions eliminated for the purpose of having the Midland Police Service (the "Midland P.S.”) communications and dispatch services contracted out to the Owen Sound Police Service (the “Owen Sound P.S.”).
3Pursuant to the Commission’s established practice with regard to an application under section 40 of the Act, the Commission holds a public meeting in the affected municipality to afford the residents an opportunity to receive information regarding the particulars of the application and to comment on the application.
4Prior to and at a public meeting held on August 20, 2015, seventeen exhibits were filed with the Commission. They are listed in Schedule “A” to this Decision.
B. The Application for Consent
5The Board sent an incomplete Application for consent to the Commission by letter dated May 1, 2015. The Board’s complete Application and supporting documentation was formally sent to the Commission on May 7, 2015 by letter from George Dixon, Board Chair.
6As noted above, the Board is applying under Section 40 of the Act for the Commission’s consent to the formal reduction of the Service through the termination of each of the Affected Employees and the elimination of their respective CRO positions. The Affected Employees presently perform dispatch services from the Midland Communications Centre of the Service.
7Subject to the Commission’s consent, the Board proposes to enter into a five (5) year contract with the Owen Sound P.S. for the provision of such dispatch and 911 communication services (the “communication services”).
8The Board submits that the proposed outsourcing of these communication services will ensure that the Service continues to provide adequate and effective policing of the municipality while providing the Board with potential cost savings between $250,000.00 and $300,000.00 annually.
9The Application and supporting documentation chronologically outline the increasing financial pressures facing the Board and its ongoing ability to provide adequate and effective communication services. Efforts have been made to achieve increased revenues; however, the decline in income from CPIC related searches and other revenue generating activities has seriously affected the Board’s ability to meet budget targets.
10In November 2012, meetings were held with the Midland Police Association (the “Association”) to discuss possible ways to retain the local dispatch service; however, the Board has maintained that declining revenues, due to circumstances beyond its control, have continued to place the Service in a difficult financial position.
11The Board has been aware of the opportunity to outsource the communication services since 2012. Since that time, as the Service’s revenues continued to decline, the Board began to focus upon the significant cost of maintaining the local stand-alone communications centre and to explore possible options either to market its communication services to other municipal police forces or, alternatively, to reduce its costs.
12Outsourcing was presented to the Association as a possible option during the Board’s discussions of the 2014 budget and the Board received input about the Association’s concerns. Subsequently, in presenting its 2015 budget proposal to Midland Municipal Council on September 10, 2014, the Board informed Council of the possible option to outsource the communications service as a cost saving measure.
13An intervening municipal election in the fall of 2014 necessitated a delay in proceeding; however, the outsourcing option was again raised with the newly elected Council in early 2015.
14At a meeting held on January 26, 2015, the Council recommended that the Board consider the concept of outsourcing police dispatch and on February 18, 2015, the Board decided to proceed with the proposed outsourcing to reduce the Service’s operating costs.
15In the written Application, the Board Chair outlined that the Board felt confident that the proposed transition to Owen Sound’s communications service would maintain the existing level of service for Midland and, in some ways enhance the dispatch capabilities. He gave as an example the fact that, currently, there is no immediate back-up in emergency situations. He pointed out that Owen Sound P.S. has additional staff on site at all times and a larger part-time staff available if required.
16Currently in Midland, there is a single CRO in the communications centre responsible for dispatching police, fire and public works. Dispatchers are supervised and can be relieved by a uniformed Sergeant who is primarily responsible for responding to calls and supervising officers on patrol but is not in the office at all times. In a medical emergency, there is no immediate back-up for the CRO. The Board Chair also pointed out that using a uniformed officer to relieve CROs reduces the uniformed officer’s availability to do police duties.
17The Application pointed out that the Board is aware that other communities have successfully transitioned to utilizing the Owen Sound communication services.
C. The Board’s Community Consultation
18The Application documentation confirms that a community information session was held on March 10, 2015, preceded by advertisements in the local newspaper, on social media and through direct communications with staff. This meeting was attended by approximately 50 people, the majority being employees of the Service, who asked questions of the Board, Chief Osborne and Chief Sornberger and were provided with information about the proposed arrangement with Owen Sound P.S.
D. Commission’s Public Meeting
19The Commission held a pre-advertised public meeting on August 20, 2015 at the Midland Ontario municipal offices. This two-member panel (the “Panel”) presided.
20The Panel advised those attending the meeting that there were two requirements under section 40 of the Act that must be satisfied:
(a) that after closure of the Midland communication centre, the termination of the Affected Employees and the contracting out of the Service’s communication services to the Owen Sound P.S., the Service will continue to provide adequate and effective policing in the municipality; and
(b) the Affected Employees receive fair severance compensation.
21Alexander Sinclair addressed the Panel on behalf of the Board. He outlined that there are seven (7) other police services successfully using the communication services provided by Owen Sound P.S.
22He confirmed that in 2012, there were preliminary discussions between the Board and the Association to explore options but no subsequent action was taken.
23He stated that the Service’s revenues had dropped by $800,000.00 since 2008 and the Board has had to consider carefully Council’s recommendation to outsource communication services. He went on to confirm the information set out in the Application letter dated May 7, 2015 from the Board Chair.
24Mr. Sinclair outlined the proposed communications services to be provided. He referred the Panel to the information contained in the letter from Chief Sornberger dated April 28, 2015 confirming that Owen Sound P.S. currently employs eight (8) full-time and eight (8) part-time dispatchers and two (2) switchboard operators. There are three (3) active dispatch consoles and a switchboard operator console active at any given time and a fourth dispatch console has been added to the Communications Centre and can be utilized to handle call volume overflow.
25The radio system operated by Owen Sound P.S. Communications Centre is a Telex radio console that has the capability of working with both Kenwood and Motorola systems.
26There are two (2) full-time dispatchers on duty 24 hours a day, seven (7) days per week and a third dispatcher on duty from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Monday to Friday, and 9:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. on Fridays and from 11:00 a.m. Saturday until 3:00 a.m. on Sunday. Two (2) switchboard operator positions have been added to the Communications Centre to process the administrative lines for the seven other police services for which Owen Sound provides communication services. The switchboard operator positions run on two separate shifts during days from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. and afternoons from 3:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. Monday to Friday.
27Many of the communicators in Owen Sound P.S. have more than 20 years experience. Part-time members are employed to assist with increased service demands and to cover absences. It is proposed that with the addition of the Midland P.S. to the system, the full-time staff complement will increase by two members.
28As required by the statutory Adequacy Standards, there is a trained supervisor on duty 24 hours a day who is familiar with all policies and emergency equipment and on issues such as high-speed pursuits.
29There are five full-time and four part-time data entry clerks who are responsible for compiling and entering all records and reports into the Ontario Policing Technology & Information Cooperative (OPTIC) records management system (also known as Niche), the police file maintenance and CPIC systems.
30In addition, the computer systems are continually being maintained and updated with leading edge technology. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is installed in all patrol vehicles along with mapping systems that allows for the tracking, locating and response of the closest patrol vehicles in cases of occurrences or emergencies. In-vehicle computers allow for immediate CPIC and Niche searches.
31Mr. Sinclair pointed out that, with the extra staffing in the Owen Sound P.S. Communications Centre, the issues of liability and back-up would be enhanced. He also noted the experience of other police services, using Owen Sound communication services, indicates that it has improved their overall effectiveness and the response times to calls for service have been good.
32He advised that both Mr. Dixon and Chief Osborne have toured the Owen Sound P.S. Communications Centre and found it to be excellent.
33One issue that has been of concern has been the fact that under the proposed arrangement, there will be no personnel directly available at the Midland Police Service building during evenings and weekends to respond to the public needs for service. There will be, however, a call-box located outside the building that the public can use to contact the Owen Sound Communications Centre whose dispatchers will then communicate with the Sergeant or patrol officers on duty in Midland to respond to the call.
34Mr. Sinclair advised that negotiations have been ongoing to resolve the issue of severance compensation and benefits although no agreement has yet been reached. He requested that the Commission include in its decision an order that if the issue has not been resolved within 90 days of the date of the decision, the matter be referred to arbitration as provided in Section 40 of the Act.
35Mr. Sinclair advised that the Municipal Council supported the Application.
36Chief Sornberger addressed the Panel on behalf of the Owen Sound Police Service. He confirmed that his Service had purchased an additional five communication consoles between 2011 and 2012 and that the Communications Centre can receive and make radio transmissions anywhere in North America. With Bell Canada, service there is a 98% effective level of service. In addition, the Owen Sound P.S. has two IT personnel on staff to provide expertise in servicing and operating the equipment. Chief Sornberger confirmed that the mapping of the Midland municipality has been finalized and any issues about nicknames within the municipality will be addressed so there is no confusion. Should any such issues arise, these will be dealt with through contacting Midland officers on patrol.
37Chief Sornberger also advised that in July 2015 his Service acquired a text messaging facility for the hearing impaired. There is also a back-up communications system in case of a fire at the Communications Centre.
38Training is provided to the communications staff. Currently, Owen Sound is providing dispatch services for ten police and fire services. Thirty percent (30%) of the calls received are retained and dealt with as police or fire related matters and seventy percent (70%) are sent out regarding ambulance, public works, utilities or other types of 911 calls. The average time to downstream a call is 8 seconds. In 2015 to the date of the meeting there were 22,000 calls received of which 7,000 were kept as related to policing or fire.
39Chief Sornberger confirmed that there is a supervisor on duty on the day shift and a back-up senior officer available as well. A Sergeant is available on weekends to supervise.
40Once the Owen Sound P.S. is authorized to proceed with the transition, Chief Sornberger advised that the Midland Police Service will be monitored and the system tested for a period of time. There would be a delay of approximately 80 days while Bell Canada establishes the communication connections equipment.
41In response to questions from the Panel, Chief Sornberger stated that both the texting feature and data entry process could be made available to Midland at an additional cost.
42Chief Osborne stated that he had talked to other Chiefs whose services had retained Owen Sound P.S. Communications Centre and each had assured him that the transition was seamless and successful.
43He advised that the Board and the Service had looked at other local options, including setting up a similar type system to the one in Owen Sound, involving nearby municipalities but the costs were prohibitive.
44The Panel heard from Mr. Dixon, Chair of the Board, who stated that the Board relied upon the information received from the Police Chiefs and are unanimous in saying that the Board is satisfied that, with the transition, there would continue to be adequate and effective policing in the Midland community.
45While there are no current redundancies, the transition to the Owen Sound communication services will enhance the ability of the Midland Police Service to respond more effectively to calls for service.
46Ms. Jones addressed the Panel on behalf of the Association. She started by raising an issue concerning the Commission’s jurisdiction to proceed with the section 40 meeting. The essence of her argument was that there was an outstanding grievance by the Association, which had not yet been resolved. She submitted that the Commission is exercising a statutory function and is therefore bound to comply with the requirements of the Act.
47The Board had applied for a reduction of employees while being bound to a collective agreement, which contains a grievance procedure. Under Section 128 of the Act, such collective agreement is binding on the Board. She submitted that the Board must settle the grievance first before applying for any reduction under section 40. She referenced subsection (1) which reads:” The Board may terminate or reduce the employment of a member of the police force for the purpose of abolishing the police force or reducing its size if the Commission consents and if the abolition or reduction does not contravene this Act”. [emphasis added]
48Ms. Jones submitted that reading Section 40 (1) together with Section 128, since the collective agreement is binding upon the Board and the grievance brought pursuant to that agreement has not been resolved; the Board cannot now initiate an application under Section 40. She pointed out that if the grievance were upheld, the Board would be prohibited from contracting out the communication services. She therefore requested that the public meeting be postponed pending the outcome of the grievance process.
49Mr. Sinclair drew the Panel’s attention to the provision of the collective agreement that expressly states, “there shall be no outsourcing of the communications centre in 2014”. (Ex.12, page 26). He submitted that there were no other provisions in the agreement restricting the Board’s right to proceed under section 40.
50He challenged the argument that a breach of the collective agreement is a breach of the Act. He stated that the submissions of the Association relate to labour relations and it simply cannot be the case that issues surrounding labour relations can prevent the Board from proceeding with an application under section 40. He referred the Panel to the Pembroke case. (In the Matter of an Application for Consent to reduction of the Pembroke Police Service, May 4, 2012, OCPC-DSB#12-01). He stated that this issue could be dealt with by ordering the parties to arbitration under section 40 (3).
51Although having allowed the Association and the Board to make these submissions during the public meeting held under section 40, the Panel decided that these submissions were not appropriate in this context. The Panel was concerned that the jurisdictional issue was not brought well before this public meeting. The submissions raised legal issues that neither the public nor the Panel were previously notified would be raised. The process was an established Commission policy to hold a public meeting to allow public input and not a formal hearing. Under the circumstances, the Panel exercised its authority to control its own process and declined to postpone the public meeting.
52The Panel determined that the appropriate process, in the circumstances, was to order that the Association file written submissions related to this jurisdictional issue by September 3, 2015 and the Board file any written response by September 10, 2015 and finally, that the Association file a written reply by September 14, 2015. The Panel stated that, unless the jurisdictional issue was settled beforehand, it would consider the written submissions related to the jurisdictional issue in the context of its review and decision on the Application under Section 40.
53The Panel then invited any person present to make comments or ask questions of the presenters.
54Barbara Edwards, one of the Affected Employee dispatchers, expressed concerns regarding whether the response times will be adversely affected. At the March 10, 2015 public meeting it was noted that the Service had already increased the number of switchboard operators so that there were now three dispatchers and one call operator. She expressed concern for officer safety. Some current dispatch members are residents and five others live close by and are very familiar with the municipality. She expressed concern that the Affected Employees were told initially that the transfer would occur at the end of June 2015. Some of the persons had already found other full-time employment but were now working two jobs. She urged the Commission to make the decision quickly.
55The next person to speak was William Gordon, a member of the Service. He stated that, while he is not directly impacted personally, he was concerned about the 911 texting. He stated that the lack of implementation was not because of any issue with it but because of a lack of funding. He stated that there is back-up of the current communication system located at the fire station and there are two back-up sites.
56He stated that the Service was as progressive as any other service and he did not want the wrong impression left. At the municipal public meeting on March 10, 2015, the public was informed by the Board Chair that the outsourcing decision had already been made. Consequently, the public was not encouraged to dispute the decision and many people were upset.
57He was confused about the Commission’s meeting and if it had been more widely known, then more people would have attended. There was a petition containing 350 signatures expressing disagreement with any changes.
58He also expressed concern with the call-box arrangement and questioned its safety.
59Denise Hurlbut, a resident, addressed the meeting. She supported the positions expressed by William Gordon, particularly relating to the call-box.
60Roy Ellis, a member of the Board, pointed out that there are serious economic issues in Midland. He stated that the Service does an excellent job but the budget has increased 7%. There is high unemployment in the area. He was hoping at one point that the Service could take in adjoining municipalities of Penetang, Tiny and Tay Townships but that was not possible financially. He supported the transition to Owen Sound P.S. and felt that the Chiefs had good information and there would be no issue with safety.
61Kim Pelletier, another member of the affected employees, stated that she has been a dispatcher for 18 years. She knows the whole town. Her concerns related to the special needs population.
62The Panel thanked the presenters and those attending for their participation in the Commission’s public meeting.
E. Decision
63The Act sets out the requirements for policing in Ontario. Section 4 (1) imposes upon a municipality the obligation to provide “adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs” [emphasis added]. This may be accomplished in a number of ways including establishing and maintaining its own municipal police force.
64Adequate and effective policing requires provision for the necessary staff, administration, equipment, infrastructure and facilities to perform designated functions. Section 4(2) requires these functions to include crime prevention, law enforcement, assistance to victims of crime, public order maintenance, and emergency response.
65The necessary staff includes both officers and civilian employees. All such staff are members of a police force as defined in section 2 (1) of the Act.
66There are a number of provisions in the regulations promulgated under the Act describing these policing requirements and the responsibilities of the various members of a police force to ensure the requirements are met. Some of these details are found in Ontario Regulation 3/99, “Adequacy and Effectiveness of Police Services” (the “Regulation”).
67Sections 5 and 6 of that Regulation provide in part:
- (1) Police forces shall have,
(a) a communications centre;
(3) Despite clause 1 (a), instead of a police force having its own communications centre, a board may enter into an agreement under section 7 of the Act or with another municipal emergency service to use a regional or other co-operatively operated communications centre or a communications centre operated by another police force or municipal emergency service. O.Reg. 3/99, s. 5 (3);
(6) A communications centre ... must operate 24 hours a day with one or more communications operators or dispatchers to answer emergency calls for service and maintain constant two-way voice communication capability with police officers who are on patrol or responding to emergency calls. O.Reg. 3/99, s.5 (6);
- (1) Police forces shall,
(a) have a member of the police force available 24 hours a day to supervise police communications and dispatch services; and
(b) provide police officers on patrol with portable two-way voice communication capability that allows the police officers to be in contact with the communications centre when away from their vehicle or on foot patrol. O. Reg. 3/99, s. 6 (1);
(2) Despite clause (1) (a) , if the communications and dispatch services for a police force are provided by another police force……… the person supervising those services may be a member of another police force. O.Reg. 3/99, s. 6 (2).
(3) Every chief of police shall,
(a) establish procedures on communications and dispatch services; and
(b) ensure that communicators and dispatchers and those supervising them have successfully completed the required training accredited by the Ministry or have equivalent qualifications or skills as approved by the Ministry. O.Reg. 3/99, s. 6 (3).
68Section 40 of the Act is the relevant provision governing the proposed reduction of members of a police force:
- (1) A board may terminate the employment of a member of the police force for the purpose of abolishing the police force or reducing its size if the Commission consents and if the abolition or reduction 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 of the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the abolition of the police force or the reduction of its size, may order the member and the board to submit the matter to arbitration and may give any necessary directions in that connection.
69As has been stated by the Commission, the nature of the statutory scheme is self-evident. Its focus is to ensure that no municipal police service will proceed with a reduction in its size unless arrangements are in place that will satisfactorily meet the policing needs of the community affected. This essentially requires that any new arrangement must provide for services that will ensure adequate and effective policing. In addition, no member of a municipal police force can be terminated without steps being taken to provide proper severance pay. (see Application for Consent to reduction of Dryden Police Service under Section 40 of Police Services Act, OCPC-DSB #14-01).
70In order to consent to the Application, the Commission must be satisfied that the proposed reduction does not impair the Service’s ability to provide adequate and effective policing, and that arrangements have been or will be made to ensure proper severance pay for the Affected Employees.
71If the Commission is of the view that the provisions of section 40 have been complied with, it may authorize a police services board to enter into an agreement such as the proposed agreement herein between the Board and the Owen Sound P.S.
72The Panel has carefully reviewed the Application and supporting documentation. We have also heard and considered the additional information presented at the public meeting by the presenters and the comments and concerns expressed by members of the Affected Employees and public.
73The Commission Panel has concluded that the Board has presented a sound rationale and sufficient evidence to support the position that the outsourcing of the communication services to the Owen Sound P.S. Communication Centre will continue to meet the requirement of providing adequate and effective policing to the Midland community as required under section 40 of the Act.
74The contents of the Application and supporting material, as well as the submissions made by Mr. Sinclair on behalf of the Board, the information provided by both Chief Sornberger and Chief Osborne clearly establish that the Service has exercised due diligence in confirming the details of the proposed Owen Sound communication services and the successful transition of other police services to a similar outsourcing.
75Chief Osborne and Mr. Dixon stated they have personally inspected the facilities and staffing of the Owen Sound Communications Centre and are satisfied that the change will not compromise the level of police communication services in Midland.
76Both Chief Osborne and Chief Sornberger confidently assured the Panel that the new arrangement would not adversely affect the Service’s provision of adequate and effective policing to the Midland community.
77On several prior occasions, the Commission has had the opportunity to review the standards and conditions at the Owen Sound P.S. Communications Centre and in each case found the facility to be modern, well run, properly staffed, and equipped. (see Pembroke, supra, para. 59; and Application for Consent to reduction of the Port Hope Police Service, para. 70, OCPC-DSB #13-03).
78The Panel therefore finds that the Service will continue to deliver adequate and effective policing to the municipality of Midland after its communication and dispatch services are transitioned to the Owen Sound P.S. as proposed in the Application.
79We find that the concerns expressed at the public meeting held on August 20, 2015 have been addressed satisfactorily in the information provided by the applicant Board. In terms of the issue of adequate opportunities to provide public input, the Panel notes that there was a public meeting arranged by the Board and held on March 10, 2015 preceded by advertisements. That meeting afforded opportunity to present the public’s views on the proposed outsourcing. The Commission meeting held on August 20, 2015 was publicly advertised and offered a further opportunity to the residents to express their concerns.
80The arrangement for the installation of a public call-box to provide access to the Communications Centre for response has proven satisfactory in the experience of other police services using the Owen Sound P.S. Communications Centre. We are satisfied that this arrangement will be suitable and not raise safety concerns.
81With an average response time of 8 seconds from receipt of a call for service until dispatch to the Service, there should be no change to the response times by the Service. In addition, the Panel is assured that if a dispatcher with the Owen Sound Communications Centre has any question regarding special needs persons, the message will be sent to the supervising or patrol officer with the Midland Service who will be able to respond accordingly.
82We are also satisfied that there will be broader communication services available with a significant increase in staffing availability. There are additional options, including texting and data storage, should the Board opt for these services. A factor is also the cost savings to the Service.
83As was stated by the Board Chair and Chief Osborne, the reasons for the proposed change in communication services are not reflective of the quality of the work of the Affected Employees. Both expressed great satisfaction with the performance of the communication staff.
84Turning to the issue of severance, subsequent to the Commission’s public meeting on August 20, 2015, and the order issued at that time, the Panel has received a signed copy of Minutes of Settlement dated September 8, 2015 made between the Midland Police Association and the Board “fully and finally resolving the outstanding grievance and all matters arising from the CROs’ employment (Affected Employees) with the Board”.
85Since this issue of severance has now been satisfactorily resolved as required by section 40 (2), there is no need for the Commission to comment further.
86Accordingly, the Commission consents to the Board’s Application.
Dated at Toronto this 22nd day of October 2015
Roy B. Conacher, Q.C. Winston Tinglin Vice Chair, OCPC Member, OCPC
SCHEDULE A
LIST OF EXHIBITS –S. 40 APPLICATION BY MIDLAND POLICE SERVICES BOARD
Exhibit #1 – Initial Application letter dated February 23, 2015 Exhibit #2 – E-mail from Cathy Boxer to David Gavsie dated March 25, 2015 Exhibit #3 – Letter from Cathy Boxer-Byrd to George Dixon dated March 27, 2015 Exhibit #4 – Letter from David Gavsie to George Dixon dated May 4, 2015 Exhibit #5 – Formal Application Letter with enclosures from George Dixon to David Gavsie, OCPC, dated May 7, 2015 Exhibit #6 – Letter from George Dixon to David Gavsie, OCPC dated May 1, 2015 Exhibit #7 – Excerpt from in-camera meeting of Midland Police Services Board dated February 18, 2015 Exhibit #8 – Letter from Chief Michael Osborne to David Gavsie, OCPC, dated May 1, 2015 Exhibit #9 – Letter from Chief William Sornberger to David Gavsie, OCPC, dated April 28, 2015 Exhibit #10 – Letter from Carolyn Tripp, CAO Town of Midland, to George Dixon dated January 28, 2015 Exhibit #11 – Request for Proposal Communication Service, Owen Sound Police Service dated September 15, 2014 Exhibit #12 – 2014 Collective Agreement, Midland Police Association Civilian Members Exhibit #13 – Memorandum on outsourcing of police dispatch services authored by Chief Mike Osborne dated February 23, 2015 Exhibit #14 – News Report in Midland Mirror dated February 23, 2015 Exhibit #15 – News release authored by Inspector Ron Wheeldon dated March 2, 2015 Exhibit #16 - Book of Documents, filed by Johnstone & Cowling LLP Exhibit #17 – Book of Authorities, filed by Johnstone & Cowling LLP