Cst. A. v. Chief of the Edmonton Police Service et al., 2015 ABQB 697

JudgeSulyma, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 27, 2015
Citations2015 ABQB 697;[2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.032

Cst. A. v. Police Chief, [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.032

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.032

Cst. A. (appellant) v. The Chief of the Edmonton Police Service and the Law Enforcement Review Board (respondents)

(1403 03984; 2015 ABQB 697)

Indexed As: Cst. A. v. Chief of the Edmonton Police Service et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Sulyma, J.

November 30, 2015.

Summary:

Constable A. applied for judicial review of her dismissal. She had proceeded through the process for police discipline mandated by the Police Act. That legislation mandated the roles of the Chief of Police, the presiding officer, the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB) and the Court of Appeal. The role of the Court of Queen's Bench in the discipline process was neither referred to nor defined in the legislation.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "I am of the view that the legislation occupies the whole field of rights regarding discipline process of an individual police officer, all culminating in a direct appeal from the LERB decision to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. I find that I have no jurisdiction on the facts here to review the decision of the LERB. As a result, I find no need to examine issues of scope of review and a standard of review. I dismiss the application. If I am incorrect in my conclusion regarding the very presence of any jurisdiction at the Court of Queen's Bench level, then I decline to exercise my jurisdiction. The LERB itself does not select a penalty. Rather, it reviews the presiding officer's penalty decision for reasonableness. On the facts here, the Applicant is urging me to find that singly or cumulatively in reviewing the presiding officer's decision, the Board made errors. However, keeping deference in mind and the LERB's decision as a whole within context it does not appear to me to have fallen outside the range of acceptable outcomes."

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Administrative Law - Topic 3303

Judicial review - General - Bars - Appeal or review available - See paragraphs 1 to 20.

Police - Topic 4162

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals and judicial review - When available - See paragraphs 1 to 20.

Police - Topic 4163

Internal organization - Discipline and judicial review - Appeals - Jurisdiction - See paragraphs 1 to 20.

Counsel:

Patrick Nugent and Tamara Friesen (Nugent Law Office), for the appellant, Cst. A.;

Simon Johnson (Bennett Jones LLP), for the respondent, Chief of Edmonton Police Service;

Sean McDonough (Alberta Justice & Solicitor General), for the respondent, Law Enforcement Review Board.

This matter was heard on January 27, 2015, before Sulyma, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on November 30, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT