Ackerman v. Ontario Provincial Police Service et al., 2010 ONSC 910

• Judge: McCombs, Lederman and Molloy, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: January 29, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2010 ONSC 910;(2010), 259 O.A.C. 163 (DC)

Ackerman v. Police Service (2010), 259 O.A.C. 163 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.008

Peter Ackerman (applicant) v. Ontario Provincial Police Service and Commissioner Julian Fantino (respondents)

(597/08; 2010 ONSC 910)

Indexed As: Ackerman v. Ontario Provincial Police Service et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

McCombs, Lederman and Molloy, JJ.

February 11, 2010.

Summary:

In April 2007, a police officer was suspended from duty pending an investigation into allegations of misconduct. The initial investigation determined that no criminal charges would be laid. A further investigation by the Professional Services Bureau (PSB) into possible disciplinary proceedings resulted in a report dated January 2008. Because more than six months had passed from the date that the facts on which the complaint was based had come to the attention of the chief of police, the PSB sought the commissioner's approval for the service of a notice of hearing under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act. In October 2008, the commissioner extended the time for service. A hearing date was set. The officer sought judicial review of the commissioner's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

Administrative Law - Topic 3220

Judicial review - Interim applications or rulings - General - In April 2007, a police officer was suspended from duty pending an investigation into allegations of misconduct - The initial investigation determined that no criminal charges would be laid - A further investigation by the Professional Services Bureau (PSB) into possible disciplinary proceedings resulted in a report dated January 2008 - Because more than six months had passed from the date that the facts on which the complaint was based had come to the attention of the chief of police, the PSB sought the commissioner's approval for the service of a notice of hearing under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act - In October 2008, the commissioner extended the time for service - A hearing date was set - The officer sought judicial review of the commissioner's decision - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature - As a general principle, the court declined to review an interlocutory or interim decision - This principle was rooted in public policy, respect for Parliament's intention that the administrative regime was to be cost-effective and expeditious, and deference to administrative tribunals - It was inconsistent with those principles to permit participants to pursue judicial review prior to having exhausted their remedies within the administrative regime - There might be situations in which an interlocutory ruling was so tainted by procedural unfairness and breaches of principles of natural justice that the court would appropriately intervene, but that was not the situation here - Given the context, the commissioner's brief reasons were adequate - There were no exceptional circumstances to take the case outside the normal rule that administrative proceedings ought not to be fragmented by bringing judicial review applications challenging interlocutory orders - The officer was not denied a remedy if the application was quashed as premature - Any prejudice suffered due to delay could be raised at his hearing - See paragraphs 11 to 31.

Administrative Law - Topic 3348

Judicial review - General - Practice - Time for application - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Police - Topic 4162

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals and judicial review - When available - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Police - Topic 4266

Internal organization - Discipline - Procedure - Notice - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Cases Noticed:

Roosma and Weller et al. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (1988), 29 O.A.C. 84; 66 O.R.(2d) 18 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

Ontario College of Art et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1993), 63 O.A.C. 393; 11 O.R.(3d) 798 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

Latif v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1992), 55 O.A.C. 204; 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 227 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

Gore et al. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (2008), 242 O.A.C. 18; 92 O.R.(3d) 195 (Div. Ct.), affd. (2009), 251 O.A.C. 49; 2009 ONCA 546, refd to. [para. 34].

Howe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Ont.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 26; 19 O.R.(3d) 483 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1995), 186 N.R. 78; 85 O.A.C. 320; 21 O.R.(3d) xvi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

McIntosh v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (1998), 116 O.A.C. 158; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 524 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Deemar v. College of Veterinarians (Ont.), [2008] O.A.C. Uned. 420; 92 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Kahlon (2005), 278 F.T.R. 254; 35 Admin. L.R.(4th) 213 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

People First of Ontario et al. v. Regional Coroner of Niagara et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 187; 6 O.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Coombs v. Toronto (Metropolitan) Police Services Board, [1997] O.J. No. 5260 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

Forestall et al. v. Toronto Police Services Board et al. (2007), 228 O.A.C. 202 (Div. Ct.), agreed with [para. 21].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

Leo A. Kinahan, for the applicant;

Lorenzo D. Policelli, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 29, 2010, by McCombs, Lederman and Molloy, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. On February 11, 2010, Molloy, J., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.