Quaidoo v. Edmonton Chief of Police Service et al., (2015) 609 A.R. 176

• Judge: Costigan, Watson and Schutz, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: December 03, 2015
• Citations: (2015), 609 A.R. 176;2015 ABCA 381

Quaidoo v. Police Chief (2015), 609 A.R. 176; 656 W.A.C. 176 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.059

Frank Quaidoo (appellant) v. The Chief of the Edmonton Police Service (respondent) and The Law Enforcement Review Board (respondent)

(1403-0286-AC; 2015 ABCA 381)

Indexed As: Quaidoo v. Edmonton Chief of Police Service et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Costigan, Watson and Schutz, JJ.A.

December 8, 2015.

Summary:

The majority of the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB) upheld a Presiding Officer's decision to dismiss Quaidoo from his position with the Edmonton Police Service. The Presiding Officer had found Quaidoo guilty of: (a) one count of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority (assault of a prisoner sitting in a police car); and (b) two counts of deceit (false statements in an original police report and later a report to the Professional Standards Branch to the same effect about the assault) pursuant to s. 5 of the Police Service Regulation. Quaidoo sought to appeal the LERB's decision relating to the penalty of dismissal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Berger, J.A., in a decision reported at [2015] A.R. Uned. 32, granted leave to appeal on the following questions of law: 1) Did the LERB err in law by endorsing as reasonable the Presiding Officer's reliance upon Quaidoo's protestation of innocence and his failure to accept responsibility and demonstrate remorse as factors preventing him from receiving a reduced sanction; and 2) Did the LERB err in law by endorsing as reasonable the Presiding Officer's decision to treat a finding of deceit as precluding any sanction other than the non-negotiable sanction of dismissal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Police - Topic 4161

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals and judicial review - General (incl. standard of review) - Quaidoo appealed a decision of the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB), which upheld a Presiding Officer's decision to dismiss him from his position with the Edmonton Police Service - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the standard of review - The court stated, inter alia, that "the parties do not dispute that the LERB was to review the decision of the Presiding Officer for reasonableness. Nor is it disputed that this Court is to review the decision of the LERB for reasonableness. ... Generally speaking the LERB should defer to specific fact findings by the Presiding Officer absent admissible new evidence before the LERB or palpable and overriding error of fact by the Presiding Officer. The LERB must be correct in its selection of its standard of review of the Presiding Officer's decision and in its application of that standard of review. ... Here we are not persuaded that the LERB majority either selected or applied an incorrect review standard to the decision of the Presiding Officer in the circumstances of this case. Reasonableness was the standard and was reasonably applied by the LERB majority. The majority did not blindly defer to the Presiding Officer, but carefully scrutinized the decision for reasonableness" - See paragraphs 23 to 28.

Police - Topic 4173

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals and judicial review - To court - Scope or standard of review - [See Police - Topic 4161 ].

Police - Topic 4205

Internal organization - Discipline - Punishment - Dismissal - [See Police - Topic 4208 ].

Police - Topic 4208

Internal organization - Discipline - Punishment - Considerations - The majority of the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB) upheld a Presiding Officer's decision to dismiss Quaidoo from his position with the Edmonton Police Service - The Presiding Officer had found Quaidoo guilty of: (a) one count of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority (assault of a prisoner sitting in a police car); and (b) two counts of deceit (false statements in an original police report and later a report to the Professional Standards Branch to the same effect about the assault) pursuant to s. 5 of the Police Service Regulation - Quaidoo sought to appeal the LERB's decision relating to the penalty of dismissal - He was granted leave to appeal on the following questions of law: 1) Did the LERB err in law by endorsing as reasonable the Presiding Officer's reliance upon Quaidoo's protestation of innocence and his failure to accept responsibility and demonstrate remorse as factors preventing him from receiving a reduced sanction; and 2) Did the LERB err in law by endorsing as reasonable the Presiding Officer's decision to treat a finding of deceit as precluding any sanction other than the non-negotiable sanction of dismissal - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court stated, inter alia, "the conclusions of the Presiding Officer and of the majority of the LERB should be taken as a whole. Although different conclusions by either may have also been reasonable, both decisions fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law in this context of policing and law enforcement" - See paragraphs 43 to 56.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McNeil (L.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66; 383 N.R. 1; 246 O.A.C. 154; 2009 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 21].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559; 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 24].

Edmonton Police Service v. Furlong et al. (2013), 544 A.R. 191; 567 W.A.C. 191; 2013 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 26].

Camrose Police Service v. MacDonald et al. (2013), 566 A.R. 141; 597 W.A.C. 141; 2013 ABCA 422, refd to. [para. 26].

Sivia v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. (2015), 476 N.R. 3; 2015 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 30].

Goodwin v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. - see Sivia v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al.

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 31].

Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 504; 417 N.R. 126; 279 O.A.C. 63; 2011 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 31].

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 275 Man.R.(2d) 16; 538 W.A.C. 16; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Ambrose (B.A.) (2000), 271 A.R. 164; 234 W.A.C. 164; 2000 ABCA 264, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Kelly (J.J.) (2015), 607 A.R. 179; 653 W.A.C. 179; 2015 ABCA 332, refd to. [para. 43].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895; 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 47].

Amery v. Young, LERB 007-93, refd to. [para. 48].

Lingl v. Calgary Police Service, LERB 025-93, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Beaudry (A.), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190; 356 N.R. 323; 2007 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 52].

Lévis (City) v. Fraternité des policiers de Lévis Inc. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 591; 359 N.R. 199; 2007 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 52].

Plimmer v. Chief of Police et al. (2004), 354 A.R. 62; 329 W.A.C. 62; 2004 ABCA 175, refd to. [para. 53].

Counsel:

M.T. Duckett, Q.C., for the appellant;

G.H. Crowe, for the respondent, The Chief of the Edmonton Police Service;

S.P. McDonough, for the respondent, The Law Enforcement Review Board.

This appeal was heard on December 3, 2015, before Costigan, Watson and Schutz, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal filed the following memorandum of judgment on December 8, 2015.