Board of Commissioners of Police of Hamilton-Wentworth Region v. Hamilton-Wentworth Police Association, (1991) 45 O.A.C. 301 (DC)

• Judge: O'Leary, Southey and Austin, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: December 17, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1991), 45 O.A.C. 301 (DC)

Police Commr. v. Police Assoc. (1991), 45 O.A.C. 301 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of an Arbitration award made the 21st day of March, 1989

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Board of Commissioners of Police (applicant) v. The Hamilton-Wentworth Police Association (respondent)

(455/89)

Indexed As: Board of Commissioners of Police of Hamilton-Wentworth Region v. Hamilton-Wentworth Police Association

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

O'Leary, Southey and Austin, JJ.

January 2, 1991.

Summary:

A police Staff Sergeant was charged with stealing and conspiring to steal beer and liquor, but was acquitted. Despite failing to inform the Board of Police Commissioners within the required 30 days of his intention to ask for indemnification of the legal costs incurred in his defence, he did so. An arbitrator allowed indemnification. The Board of Police Commissioners applied for judicial review of the arbitrator's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Austin, J., dissenting, dismissed the application.

Police - Topic 6667

Police Commission - Inquiry - Legal expenses of officers - A police force's collective agreement provided that where a member was acquitted of an offence "because of acts done in the attempted performance in good faith of his/her duties", he or she could be indemnified for the necessary and reasonable legal costs incurred - A member engaged in after-hours drinking of confiscated alcohol in the course of winding-down "bull" sessions - An arbitrator found the member, who was acquitted of stealing and conspiring to steal liquor, acted in good faith and was entitled to indemnification, despite failing to give the required notice of intention - The Ontario Divisional Court upheld the decision.

Counsel:

Scott G. Thompson, for the applicant;

B. Chercover, for the respondent.

This application was heard before O'Leary, Southey and Austin, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on December 17, 1990. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered orally and released on January 2, 1991, when the following opinions were filed:

O'Leary, J. (Southey, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 2;

Austin, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 3 to 6.