Godfrey v. Ontario Police Commission et al., (1991) 53 O.A.C. 338 (DC)

• Judge: Carruthers, Watt and Davidson, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: January 11, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1991), 53 O.A.C. 338 (DC)

Godfrey v. Police Comm. (1991), 53 O.A.C. 338 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

P.A. Godfrey (applicant) v. Ontario Police Commission (respondent) and Police Association of Ontario (intervenor)

(No. 861/89)

Indexed As: Godfrey v. Ontario Police Commission et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

Carruthers, Watt and Davidson, JJ.

August 30, 1991.

Summary:

An Ontario Provincial Police constable was charged under s. 1(g)(i) of the Code of Offences in the Police Act Regulations with unlawfully or unnecessarily exercising au­thority during an arrest. The constable's super­intendent found the constable guilty and ordered that he forfeit two days' pay. The Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police reviewed and confirmed the superin­ten­dent's decision. The constable appealed to the Ontario Police Commission under s. 58 of the Regulations.

The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the appeal from conviction. The Commis­sion, however, increased the penalty to five days without pay, the maximum number of days allowed by the Regulations. The con­stable had no notice that the Commissioner on appeal would seek an increased penalty. The con­stable applied for judicial review of the Commission's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application, set aside the order of the Police Commission, and substituted an order dis­missing the constable's appeal to the Com­mission.

Administrative Law - Topic 2447

Natural justice - Procedure - Notice - Notice of sanctions to be imposed - [See first Police - Topic 4166 ].

Police - Topic 4166

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals - Powers of appeal board - A police officer was convicted of a disciplin­ary offence and ordered to forfeit two days' pay - The Police Commissioner confirmed the penalty - The officer appealed under the Police Act Regulations, s. 58 - The Ontario Police Commission dismissed the appeal, but increased the penalty - The Commissioner gave no notice of his intention to seek an increased penalty and the Commissioner had no right of appeal - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the Police Commission made a jurisdictional error in holding that it had power under s. 58(10)(c) of the Regula­tions to impose an increased penalty - Further, there was a denial of natural justice in the Commissioner's failure to give notice of its intention to seek an increased punishment.

Police - Topic 4166

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals - Powers of appeal board - Sec­tion 58 of the Police Act Regulations provided for an appeal to the Police Com­mission from a conviction or sentence imposed upon an officer for a disciplinary offence, after the conviction and sentence was confirmed, mitigated, commuted or remitted by the Police Commissioner - Section 58(10)(c) Regulations allowed the Commission on an appeal to "vary the punishment imposed as it considers just" - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the s. 58(10)(c) did not permit the Commission to impose on appeal a greater or more severe form of punishment than that imposed at first instance and dealt with by the Commissioner.

Police - Topic 4266

Internal organization - Discipline - Pro­cedure - Notice - [See first Police - Topic 4166 ].

Police - Topic 6604

Police commission - Scope of powers - [See second Police - Topic 4166 ].

Words and Phrases

Vary - The Ontario Divisional Court discussed the meaning of the word "vary" as it was used in the phrase "vary the punishment imposed as it considers just" in s. 58(10)(c) of the Ontario Police Act Regulation 791 - See paragraphs 30 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Le Syndi­cat des employés de production du Qué­bec et de l'Acadie, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 412; 55 N.R. 321; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 457, refd to. [para. 28].

Syndicat national des employés de la com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 28].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Board of Commissioners of Police, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Hill (No. 2), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 827; 7 N.R. 373; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [paras. 32, 46].

R. v. Hill (1974), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 145 (Ont. C.A.), affd. (1975), 6 N.R. 413; 23 C.C.C.(2d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Doucette v. Nova Scotia Police Commis­sion and Fry (1980), 40 N.S.R.(2d) 562; 73 A.P.R. 562; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 274 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Colledge v. Niagara Regional Police Com­mission et al. (1983), 40 O.R.(2d) 340 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

Trumbley and Pugh et al. v. Toronto Police Force et al. (1986), 15 O.A.C. 279; 55 O.R.(2d) 570 (C.A.), affd. [1987] 2 S.C.R. 577; 51 N.R. 212; 24 O.A.C. 372; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 318, refd to. [para. 39].

United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, Local 520 and A.H. Tallman Bronze Co. Ltd., Re (1957), 7 L.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 41].

Oxford Pendaflex Canada Ltd. and Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union, Local 466, Re (1976), 14 L.A.C.(2d) 104, refd to. [para. 41].

Galt-Brantfort Malleable Ltd. v. Interna­tional Moulders and Allied Workers, Local 29 (1974), 6 L.A.C.(2d) 302, refd to. [para. 41].

United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri­cul­tural Implement Workers of America, Local 28 v. Canada Cycle and Motor Co. Ltd. (1951), 3 L.A.C. 837, refd to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 687(1) [para. 31].

Crown Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 108, sect. 19(1) [para. 42].

Labour Relations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 228, sect. 44(2) [para. 42].

Police Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 381, sect. 42 [para. 23]; sect. 74(1)(a) [paras. 8, 38].

Police Act Regulations, Reg. 791, sect. 38(1) [para. 9]; sect. 40(3), sect. 51(4), sect. 51(7), sect. 51(8) [para. 40]; sect. 52(3) [para. 9]; sect. 52(6) [paras. 11, 40]; sect. 52(7) [paras. 12, 13, 40]; sect. 52(8) [paras. 10, 13, 40]; sect. 52(8)(d) [para. 4]; sect. 52(9) [paras. 13, 43]; sect. 58 [paras. 6, 43]; sect. 58(1), sect. 58(2) [para. 14]; sect. 58(8) [para. 15]; sect. 58(10) [paras. 10, 29]; sect. 58(10)(c) [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 58(10)(e) [paras. 16, 35]; Sched­ule, Code of Offences, sect. 1(g)(i) [para. 2].

Counsel:

W. Michael Temple, Q.C., for the appli­cant;

John Zarudny, for the respondent;

Ian J. Roland, for the intervenor.

This application was heard on January 11, 1991, before Carruthers, Watt and Davidson, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of the court was delivered by Watt, J., and released on August 30, 1991.