CITATION: Toronto Police Association v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 ONSC 4511

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 91/12

DATE: 20130702

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

MOLLOY, HAMBLY and HERMAN JJ.

BETWEEN:

TORONTO POLICE ASSOCIATION

Applicant

– and –

TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD and PAULA KNOPF

Respondents

Ian Roland and Michael Fenrick, for the Applicant

Michael Hines, for the Respondent Toronto Police Services Board

HEARD: April 15, 2013 at Toronto

MOLLOY J.

REASONS FOR DECISION

A. INTRODUCTION

[1] In July 2007, Toronto’s Chief of Police implemented a rule requiring uniform officers who are under suspension to report in person twice daily at police headquarters. The Toronto Police Association (“the Association”) is the collective bargaining unit for non-commissioned officers of the Toronto Police Service and is a party to the collective agreement with the Toronto Police Services Board (“the Board”). The Association objected to the reporting rule as being unreasonable and punitive. The Board took the position that this was outside its responsibility and fell solely within the jurisdiction of the Chief. Ultimately the Association filed a policy grievance and Paula Knopf was appointed as Arbitrator. The parties agreed that Arbitrator Knopf should first decide whether she had any jurisdiction to hear the matter.

[2] The preliminary issue before the Arbitrator was whether this was a matter involving working conditions of police officers and therefore within the collective agreement or whether it was a matter involving day to day police operations and therefore solely within the powers of the Chief of Police. After hearing evidence and argument solely on the jurisdictional issue, the Arbitrator held that the twice-daily reporting requirement is within the power of the Chief of Police, and not the Board. She therefore dismissed the grievance as being outside the scope of arbitral review.

[3] The Association now applies to the Divisional Court for judicial review of the Arbitrator’s decision.

[4] For the reasons that follow I find that the Arbitrator’s conclusion cannot be sustained as reasonable. The twice-daily reporting requirement is a working condition that falls within the collective agreement and is appropriately within the powers of the Board, in its capacity as supervisor of the Chief. In coming to the opposite conclusion, the Arbitrator unreasonably fettered her own jurisdiction by failing to properly apply case precedent, by placing an unreasonable interpretation on the governing legislation, and by interpreting the role of the Board as employer in an unduly and unreasonably restrictive manner.

B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

[5] A police officer may be suspended with pay pending criminal