ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

COMMISSION CIVILE DE L’ONTARIO SUR LA POLICE

Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario

Citation: McGuinness v. Toronto Police Service, 2018 ONCPC 3

Date: January 22, 2018

Appeal under section 87(1) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended

Between:

Cst. Sean McGuinness Appellant

and

Toronto Police Service Respondent

DECISION

Panel: D. Stephen Jovanovic, Associate Chair John Kromkamp, Member Jacqueline Castel, Member

Appearances: Lawrence Gridin, counsel for the appellant Alexandra Ciobotaru, counsel for the respondent

Place and date of hearing:

Toronto, Ontario October 16, 2017

OVERVIEW

1In a decision by Superintendent E. Bymes, dated June 22, 2016, the appellant was convicted of one count of insubordination contrary to section 2(1)(b)(ii) and one count of neglect of duty contrary to section 2(1)(c)(x) of the Code of Conduct enacted under the Police Services Act (the PSA). The appeal from the convictions was heard by the Commission on October 16, 2017.

2Counsel for the appellant, in his letter of January 15, 2018 advised the Commission that the appellant has retired from the respondent effective January 5, 2018. He took the position that the appeal was therefore moot and that the Commission no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. Counsel for the respondent, in her letter of January 16, 2018 confirmed the appellant’s retirement but took no position “on the jurisdiction of the Commission to render a decision.”

3In Mitchell v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2012 CanLII 102111 (ONCPC), the Commission reviewed the PSA in considering a similar situation, i.e. where the appellant/officer retired after oral argument had been given but before a decision was rendered. In particular, the Commission referred to section 90(1) which reads as follows:

If at any time after a complaint about the conduct of a police officer is made under this Part and before the complaint is finally disposed of the police officer resigns, no further action shall be taken under this Part in respect of the complaint after the date of resignation.

4In Mitchell, the officer wanted the Commission to render a decision to possibly clear his name, while the OPP submitted that the Commission had no jurisdiction in view of the officer’s retirement. The Commission decided that it lacked jurisdiction as the officer was no longer a police officer.

5Section 22 of the PSA sets out the powers and duties of the Commission. Section 22(1)(f) provides that those duties include:

Hearing and disposing of matters referred to it by boards and appealed to it by police officers and complainants in accordance with Part V.

6In Bridgeman and Windsor Police Service, 2015 ONCPC 18 the officer retired prior to his appeal being heard by the Commission and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on consent of the parties.

7We concur with the decisions in Mitchell and Bridgeman. As the appellant is no longer a police officer the Commission no longer has jurisdiction in this matter.

ORDER

8The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.