Peel Regional Police v. Special Investigations Unit (Ont.) et al., (2012) 292 O.A.C. 103 (CA)

• Judge: O'Connor, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Cronk, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 13, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2012), 292 O.A.C. 103 (CA);2012 ONCA 292

Peel Police v. Special Investigations Unit (2012), 292 O.A.C. 103 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.007

H.M. Metcalf in his capacity as Chief of the Peel Regional Police (applicant/appellant) v. Ian Scott, Director of the Special Investigations Unit and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) (respondents/respondents in appeal)

(C53753; 2012 ONCA 292)

Indexed As: Peel Regional Police v. Special Investigations Unit (Ont.) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

O'Connor, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Cronk, J.A.

May 7, 2012.

Summary:

In 2010, the Peel Regional Police (PRP) received a complaint from a member of the public who claimed that she had been sexually assaulted by a member of the PRP while being transported into custody by police in 1981 or 1982. As required by regulation, the PRP notified the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), a civilian agency empowered by the Police Act to conduct independent investigations into serious injuries and deaths that might have resulted from criminal offences committed by police officers. When the SIU commenced an investigation into the complainant's allegations, the PRP challenged the SIU's jurisdiction over the complaint, arguing that the SIU had no authority to investigate alleged offences involving officers who were retired at the time of the complaint or which occurred prior to the creation of the SIU in 1990. When the parties failed to resolve their jurisdictional claims, the Chief of the PRP applied for declaratory and related injunctive relief regarding the SIU's authority concerning the complaint.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 1292, dismissed the application. The court ruled that s. 113(5) of the Police Act applied retrospectively to afford the SIU jurisdiction to investigate alleged criminal offences committed by police officers prior to the creation of the SIU in 1990. Further, the court declared that s. 113(5) of the Act gave the SIU jurisdiction over the investigation of criminal misconduct by police officers who had retired or resigned prior to the time of the complaint or the investigation into such complaint. The PRP appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Police - Topic 4282

Internal organization - Public Complaints Commission (incl. adjudicators, investigators and civilian investigation agencies) - Legislation - Interpretation - An applications judge ruled that the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), a civil agency empowered by s. 113(5) of the Police Act to investigate criminal behaviour by police, had jurisdiction respecting officers who had retired or resigned prior to a complaint being filed - The judge reasoned that the words "police officers" in s. 113(5) were to be interpreted as referring to police officers at the time of the alleged misconduct - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the applications judge's interpretation of the ambit of s. 113(5) of the Act - See paragraphs 23 to 70.

Police - Topic 4282

Internal organization - Public Complaints Commission (incl. adjudicators, investigators and civilian investigation agencies) - Legislation - Interpretation - [See Police - Topic 4283 ].

Police - Topic 4283

Internal organization - Public Complaints Commission (incl. adjudicators, investigators and civilian investigation agencies) - Retrospectivity of legislation re - An applications judge held that s. 113(5) of the Police Act applied retrospectively to afford the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) jurisdiction to investigate alleged criminal offences committed by police officers prior to the creation of the SIU in 1990 - The judge held that the presumption against the retrospectivity was rebutted or displaced by the procedural rights and public protection exceptions to the presumption - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the application judge did not err in holding that the procedural rights exception to the presumption against the retrospectivity of legislation applied in this case - The court therefore found it unnecessary to consider the public protection exception to the presumption - See paragraphs 71 to 88.

Police - Topic 4285

Internal organization - Public Complaints Commission (incl. adjudicators, investigators and civilian investigation agencies) - Jurisdiction - [See first Police - Topic 4282 and Police - Topic 4283 ].

Statutes - Topic 2272

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Presumption against retrospective or retroactive operation - [See Police - Topic 4283 ].

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - General principles - The Ontario Court of Appeal, in interpreting s. 113(5) of the Police Act, adopted the modern approach to statutory interpretation as discussed by Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed.) - See paragraphs 26 and 27.

Statutes - Topic 6704

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Presumption against retrospectivity and retroactivity - [See Police - Topic 4283 ].

Statutes - Topic 6713

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Retrospective or retroactive operation - Public protection - [See Police - Topic 4283 ].

Statutes - Topic 6715

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Retrospective or retroactive operation - Procedural matters - [See Police - Topic 4283 ].

Words and Phrases

Police officers - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the phrase "police officers" as it appeared in the Police Services Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P-15, sect. 113(5) - See paragraphs 23 to 70.

Cases Noticed:

Schaeffer et al. v. Wood et al. (2011), 284 O.A.C. 362; 107 O.R.(3d) 721; 2011 ONCA 716, refd to. [para. 19].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 26].

Application Under Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, Re, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248; 322 N.R. 205; 199 B.C.A.C. 45; 326 W.A.C. 45; 2004 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 26].

Browne v. Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (2001), 151 O.A.C. 302; 56 O.R.(3d) 673 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616; 4 N.R. 277, refd to. [para. 60].

Maurice v. Priel, McKeague and Walker, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1023; 96 N.R. 178; 77 Sask.R. 22, refd to. [para. 64].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Complaints Commissioner, Re, [1994] 3 F.C. 562; 173 N.R. 290 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Wright v. Hale (1860), 6 H. & N. 227, refd to. [para. 72].

Perrie v. Martin, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 41; 64 N.R. 195; 12 O.A.C. 269, refd to. [para. 73].

Yew Bon Tew v. Kenderaan Bas Mara, [1983] 1 A.C. 533, refd to. [para. 73].

Spooner Oils Ltd. v. Turner Valley Gas Conservation, [1933] S.C.R. 629, refd to. [para. 74].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, Re, [1991] 1 F.C. 529; 123 N.R. 120 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Statutes Noticed:

Police Services Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P-15, sect. 113(5) [paras. 3, 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 26].

Lewis, Clare, Ontario Report of the Race Relations Police Task Force (1989), pp. 146 [para. 39]; 147 [para. 39, 40]; 148 [para. 40].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 223 [paras. 26, 60]; 696 [para. 72].

Counsel:

David Migicovsky, for the appellant;

Peter C. Wardle and Danielle Gallo, for the respondent, Ian Scott;

Harry G. Black, Q.C., for the intervener, the Peel Regional Police Association;

David Butt, for the intervener, the Police Association of Ontario;

Sean Dewart and Tim Gleason, for the interveners, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association et al.

This appeal was heard on December 13, 2011, before O'Connor, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Cronk, J.J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Cronk, J.A., on May 7, 2012.