Victoria Kondo

The Chief of Police pled guilty to discreditable conduct after cancelling two Provincial Offence Notices issued to a city councillor for running a red light and failing to produce valid insurance.

The Chief cancelled the tickets without consulting the issuing officer or following proper procedures.

The Commission determined that the conduct undermined the rule of law and the fair administration of justice.

Balancing the Chief's exemplary employment record against the need for general deterrence, the Commission ordered a penalty of forfeiture of 5 days of work or 40 hours of pay.

The applicant was charged with speeding and brought a preliminary motion at trial arguing the proceeding was out of time under s. 76(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, claiming 'proceeding' meant 'trial'.

The Justice of the Peace dismissed the motion.

The applicant sought prerogative relief in the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that interlocutory rulings in provincial offences proceedings should be challenged by appeal after trial, not by prerogative relief.

Furthermore, the court held that a 'proceeding' commences with the filing of a Certificate of Offence, not the trial itself, and thus the proceeding was commenced within the six-month limitation period.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of Chief John Gauthier of the Timmins Police Service.

The investigation concerned the Chief's decision to cancel Provincial Offence Notices issued to a city councillor for a red light infraction and failing to produce valid insurance.

Chief Gauthier pled guilty to the amended allegation of acting in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Service.

The Commission accepted the guilty plea, found him guilty of discreditable conduct, and adjourned the matter to hear evidence and submissions regarding penalty.

Chief Gauthier, charged with discreditable conduct for allegedly withdrawing traffic tickets issued to a city councillor, brought a motion for further disclosure and particulars from the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the administrative law standard for disclosure had been met.

The Notice of Hearing, combined with the 48-page investigative report and extensive evidentiary disclosure, provided sufficient particulars for the Chief to know the case he had to meet.

The Commission is not required to provide its legal strategy, research, or point to the exact pieces of evidence it intends to rely upon at the hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the validity of a sworn information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to decide whether extrinsic evidence was admissible because the material in the information itself established the year it was sworn, proving the limitation period had not expired.

The information was not a nullity.

The responding party, the Niagara Regional Police Services Board, requested an adjournment of the hearing, with the consent of the Ministry of Labour but over the objection of the applicant Association.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting that the dispute regarding interim health and safety measures during the implementation of a new communications system might be resolved within the requested timeframe.

The matter was rescheduled and directions for document exchange were issued.