ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario
In the Matter of the Peterborough Police Services Board under section 24 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15
ORDER
Order made by: Linda P. Lamoureux, Executive Chair
Date of Order: 2016-12-13
File: 2016-FIL-015
Case Name: Peterborough Police Services Board (Re)
A. Overview:
[1]. On 8 March 2016, the Solicitor General made a request pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 (PSA) that the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) “investigate, inquire into, and report on” matters relating to the Peterborough Police Services Board’s (PPSB) “ability to discharge its statutory responsibilities.” The Solicitor General advised in the letter that despite receiving an “unprecedented amount of support” from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS), the PPSB had continued to struggle to discharge its mandate. He expressed his concern that this was having an impact on “the policing of the community the PPSB serves.”
[2]. In response to the request of the Solicitor General, the OCPC exercised its discretion to commence an investigation into the Peterborough Police Services Board.
B. Order:
[3]. Based on evidence obtained during the course of the investigation, as summarized in this Order, the Commission is now of the opinion that the ongoing dysfunction of the PPSB constitutes an emergency and that the appointment of an administrator pursuant to subsection 23(1) of the PSA is necessary in the public interest.
C. Background:
[4]. Effective police services are essential to the governance and safety of municipalities in the province. Section 1 of the PSA provides that police services shall be provided in accordance with the following principles:
i. The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario;
ii. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code;
iii. The need for co-operation between the providers of police services and the communities they serve;
iv. The importance of respect for victims of crime and understanding of their needs;
v. The need for sensitivity to the pluralistic, multiracial and multicultural character of Ontario society;
vi. The need to ensure that police forces are representative of the communities they serve.
[5]. Police Services Boards are central to ensuring that communities are receiving adequate police services. With the exception of services provided by the OPP, all police services in Ontario are overseen by a Police Services Board. According to subsection 27(5) of the PSA, as a five-member Board, Peterborough’s Police Services Board comprises:
a. the head of the municipal council or, if the head chooses not to be a member of the board, another member of the council appointed by resolution of the council;
b. one member of the council appointed by resolution of the council;
c. one person appointed by resolution of the council, who is neither a member of the council nor an employee of the municipality; and
d. two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
[6]. As set out in the PSA, Police Services Boards are responsible for ensuring that communities have adequate and effective police services. They have extensive duties which include:
Appointing the members of the municipal police force;
Determining, in consultation with the chief of police, objectives and priorities with respect to police services in the municipality;
Establishing policies for the effective management of the police force;
Recruiting and appointing the chief and deputy chief of police, and annually determining their remuneration and working conditions, taking their submissions into account;
Directing and monitoring the performance of the Chief of Police;
Establishing policies related to the chief of police’s disclosure of personal information about individuals;
Receiving regular reports from the chief of police on disclosures and decisions regarding secondary activities;
Establishing guidelines with respect to the indemnification of members of the police force for legal costs under section 50;
Establishing guidelines for dealing with complaints under Part V;
Reviewing the chief of police’s administration of the complaints system under Part V and receiving regular reports from the chief of police on his or her administration of the complaints system;
Ensuring that its members undergo any training provided/required by the Solicitor General;
Submitting operating and capital estimates to municipal council showing the amounts required to maintain the police force, to provide it with equipment and facilities and to pay the expenses of the board’s operation, other than the remuneration of the board members;
Forwarding reports of complaints about police officers, received from extra-provincial police complaint bodies, to the Independent Police Review Director;
Reviewing complaints related to police services, after they are disposed of by the chief of police if the complainant is not satisfied with the disposition of the complaint;
Reviewing complaints about the conduct of the municipal chief or deputy chief of police;
Holding hearings into the conduct of chiefs or deputy chiefs of police; and
Protecting court premises and proceedings.
[7]. The OCPC has jurisdiction to provide for the oversight of Police Services Boards, which it may exercise in a number of ways. Under subsection 23(1), the OCPC may, after holding a hearing, suspend or remove one or more members of a board and/or appoint an administrator to perform specified functions if it finds that a board has flagrantly or repeatedly failed to comply with prescribed standards of police services. Under subsection 24(1), the OCPC may make an interim order under subsection 23(1), to suspend one or more members of a police services board and/or appoint an administrator, without notice and without holding a hearing, if it is of the opinion that an emergency exists and such an order is necessary in the public interest.
D. Reasoning:
[8]. During the course of the current and ongoing investigation, it became apparent to the OCPC that there is an ongoing dysfunction of the PPSB and that this dysfunction constitutes a real and ongoing impediment to the adequate and effective delivery of police services in Peterborough. This dysfunction, together with its effect of undermining public confidence in the delivery of police services, constitutes an emergency under subsection 24(1).
[9]. The current and ongoing investigation has produced a body of reliable evidence that the PPSB has been, almost from its formation in 2015, in a state of perpetual crisis. The ill will between some members of the PPSB, some members of council and the Peterborough Police Service is palpable and has been present for some time. It shows no signs of abating. The situation in Peterborough over the past few years has been characterized by highly public disputes. Examples include disputes related to the dissolution of the former Peterborough-Lakefield Community Police Service, a dispute triggering a lengthy hearing by the OCPC into the conduct of the Mayor, and, most recently, a very public contractual dispute between the PPSB and the Chief and Deputy Chief of Police, followed by a civil suit by the City of Peterborough against the Chief and Deputy Chief of Police. Based on the information collected, the OCPC is of the opinion that the PPSB has failed to comply with a number of statutory and regulatory responsibilities under the PSA. The PPSB has been unable to complete certain simple and routine statutory duties such as the finalization of a business plan. It has also failed to set priorities and conduct a performance evaluation of the Chief and the Deputy Chief of Police. These failures raise urgent concerns about the PPSB’s ability to handle its broader responsibilities and to ensure that the public has confidence in the delivery of police services in the community.
[10]. More specifically, during the course of the investigation, the OCPC has seen evidence that:
a. Members of the PPSB have consistently engaged in conduct to undermine the role and effectiveness of the Chief of Police and the Deputy Chief of Police;
b. Members of the PPSB have attempted to interfere with the deployment of officers;
c. Members of the PPSB have repeatedly exercised authority without direction or support from the PPSB itself, acted in a manner contrary to the code of conduct, and in a manner that undermines public confidence in the provision of police services in Peterborough;
d. The Board has failed to manage routine business required by statute including:
i. Failing to prepare a business plan;
ii. Failing to set required objectives and priorities with respect to law enforcement and public safety matters;
iii. Failing to provide performance oversight of, and set remuneration for, the Chief and Deputy Chief of Police;
iv. Failing to establish a policy to indemnify the Chief of Police for legal costs; and
v. Failing to provide public access, as necessary, to board meetings.
e. The support provided by MCSCS to assist the Board has been ineffective and the Board’s dysfunction has continued;
f. Members of the public and other civic officials are concerned about the ongoing dysfunction of the PPSB; and
g. Members of the Police Force are experiencing increased stress and damage to morale because of the dysfunction.
E. Conclusion:
[11]. Based on evidence obtained during the course of the investigation, as summarized above, the Commission is now of the opinion that the ongoing dysfunction of the PPSB constitutes an emergency and that the appointment of an administrator pursuant to subsection 23(1) of the PSA is necessary in the public interest. The status of the existing Board members is not affected by this Order, as they remain members of the Board in good standing, but the Board’s functions will be overseen by the administrator.
ORDER:
[12]. Further to the above and pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the PSA, the OCPC orders that an Administrator be appointed to ensure that the PPSB comply with its statutory obligations, including ongoing compliance with the PSA and its regulations, and to promote the creation of respectful and/or functional working relationships between those involved in the provision of policing services to Peterborough that nonetheless allow for vigorous debate and the airing of diverse points of view.
[13]. The Administrator shall be given full power and authority to fulfill his or her mandate and functions and shall have unimpeded access to any and all past and current PPSB records as the Administrator may specify for the purpose of this Order.
[14]. The Administrator shall perform the following functions:
Attend, either in person or by conference call or video conference, regularly scheduled and special meetings of the PPSB, including all in camera portions thereof;
Attend, either in person or by conference call or video conference, sub-committee meetings of the PPSB;
On his or her own initiative or upon request from any member of the PPSB, provide advice to the PPSB and/or individual members, where appropriate, about: PPSB processes including, but not limited to issues such as the recording of votes, taking of minutes, scheduling agenda items, delegation of authority, and composition of subcommittees;
Achieve and maintain compliance with the PSA and any applicable regulations made pursuant to the PSA.
Establish best practices for the ongoing governance of the Board and a protocol for its relations with the Police Service, Peterborough City Council and other organizations as necessary.
Have full power and authority to make any changes he or she sees fit to the PPSB processes;
Make recommendations to the Executive Chair of the OCPC on the Board’s composition, including the power to suspend any or all of its members.
Produce a report on the above, including a detailed analysis of the changes to the PPSB process and the reasons therefor.
Work with the PPSB to engage the public in discussion about the PPSB and its role.
Advise the Executive Chair about the need to vary or cancel this Order in response to changing circumstances and in consultation with the Board.
[15]. The Administrator shall be appointed effective 16 December 2016 until 1 July 2017.
Date of Issue: December 13, 2016
Linda P. Lamoureux, Executive Chair