Sterzik and Calgary Police Association v. Beattie, Calgary Chief Police Constable and Calgary Police Service, (1985) 62 A.R. 390 (QB)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 08, 1985
• Citations: (1985), 62 A.R. 390 (QB)

Sterzik v. Beattie (1985), 62 A.R. 390 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Sterzik and Calgary Police Association v. Superintendent James Beattie, Chief Police Constable of the City of Calgary and City of Calgary Police Service

(No. 8501-08850)

Indexed As: Sterzik and Calgary Police Association v. Beattie, Calgary Chief Police Constable and Calgary Police Service

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Moore, C.J.

August 8, 1985.

Summary:

A police officer was charged under the Municipal Police Disciplinary Regulations with failing to exercise discretion and restraint in the use and care of firearms. The officer appeared for a hearing. The presiding officer adjourned the hearing to allow the police service to seek the advice of the Solicitor General as to whether disciplinary proceedings should proceed. Subsequently, the presiding officer adjourned the hearing sine die. The officer was recharged and a new hearing date was set. The officer challenged the second hearing, submitting that it was an abuse of process; that the adjournment to allow the police service to seek advice violated s. 8(1) of the Regulations; and that the presiding officer lacked jurisdiction to adjourn a hearing sine die. The presiding officer ordered that the hearing proceed. The officer applied for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the holding of a second hearing.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application. The court held that s. 8(1) was violated; that the presiding officer exceeded his jurisdiction in adjourning the hearing sine die; and that the second charge constituted an abuse of process.

Administrative Law - Topic 24

Abuse of process - What constitutes - A police officer was charged with violating the Municipal Police Disciplinary Regulations - The hearing was adjourned in violation of s. 8(1) of the Regulations - Subsequently, the presiding officer exceeded his jurisdiction by adjourning the hearing sine die - The officer was recharged and a new hearing was scheduled - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the second charge constituted an abuse of process, even though jurisdiction over the first charge had been lost - The court stated that the second charge was irregular, unfair and oppressive - See paragraphs 27 to 44.

Administrative Law - Topic 6403

Judicial review - Prohibition - Alternative remedy - Existence of - A police officer's disciplinary hearing was adjourned once and then adjourned sine die - The officer was recharged - The officer applied for prohibition, claiming that the adjournments were invalid and that the second charge constituted an abuse of process - An appeal under the Municipal Police Disciplinary Regulations was restricted to whether an adjournment unduly delayed the hearing - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the alternative remedy did not preclude obtaining prohibition, because the application for prohibition did not merely duplicate the alternative remedy - See paragraphs 21 to 26.

Police - Topic 4008

Internal organization - Jurisdiction to discipline members - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated the authority of the police force to discipline members was statutory in origin; that there was no inherent jurisdiction to discipline - The court stated that the actions of those involved in the decision making process were confined to the prescribed statutory limits - See paragraph 9.

Police - Topic 4185

Internal organization - Discipline - Hearings - Adjournments - Before a disciplinary hearing commenced, the presiding officer granted an adjournment to allow the police service to seek advice from the Solicitor General - The presiding officer relied on the powers to adjourn found in ss. 8(1)(e) and 58(3)(a) of the Municipal Police Disciplinary Regulations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the presiding officer had no jurisdiction to adjourn for this purpose, because s. 8(1)(e) did not apply to full disciplinary hearings and s. 58(3)(a) applied only where the hearing had commenced and evidence was introduced - See paragraphs 11 to 14.

Police - Topic 4185

Internal organization - Discipline - Hearings - Adjournments - Section 31 of the Municipal Police Disciplinary Regulations authorized the presiding officer to adjourn a hearing, "but no such adjournment shall unduly delay the hearing" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 31 clearly provided that the presiding officer had no jurisdiction to adjourn a hearing sine die - See paragraphs 18 to 19.

Cases Noticed:

Kupeyan v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (1982), 37 O.R.(2d) 737, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Law Society of Alberta, exp. Demco (1967), 64 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Chad Investments Ltd. and Longson, Tammets & Denton Real Estate Ltd. et al., Re (1971), 20 D.L.R.(3d) 627, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Orysiuk (1977), 6 A.R. 548, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Boross (1984), 53 A.R. 257, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Burrows (1983), 22 Man.R.(2d) 241; 6 C.C.C.(3d) 54 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Ball and the Queen, Re (1978), 44 C.C.C.(2d) 532 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Davis and the Queen, Re (1975), 24 C.C.C.(2d) 218 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Panarctic Oils Limited (1982), 38 A.R. 447; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 393 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Riley and the Queen, Re (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Krannenburg, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 31 N.R. 206; 20 A.R. 504; 51 C.C.C.(2d) 205; 108 D.L.R.(3d) 333, refd to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Police Disciplinary Regulations, Reg. 179/74, sect. 5(1) [para. 16]; sect. 8(1) [para. 5]; sect. 17(1)(a)(iv) [para. 16]; sect. 31 [para. 18]; sect. 32 [para. 21]; sect. 58(2) [para. 11]; sect. 58(3)(a) [para. 13].

Police Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-12, sect. 33(1) [para. 16].

Counsel:

C.D. Evans, Q.C., for the applicant;

J.F. Cordeau, for the respondents.

This application was heard before Moore, C.J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on August 8, 1985.