Trimm v. Durham Regional Police Force et al., (1987) 81 N.R. 197 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ.
• Citation: (1987), 81 N.R. 197 (SCC),[1987] 2 SCR 582,37 CCC (3d) 120,1987 CanLII 44 (SCC),81 NR 197,45 DLR (4th) 276,24 OAC 357,29 Admin LR 106,63 OR (2d) 734,32 CRR 244
• Date: 19 November 1987

Trimm v. Durham Reg. Police Force (1987), 81 N.R. 197 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Jerry Trimm v. Chief of Police for the Durham Regional Police Force, the Designated Presiding Officer, Deputy Chief Gerald Robinson of the Durham Regional Police Force and The Board of Commissioners of Police for the Regional Municipality of Durham, Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for

Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General for New Brunswick

(No. 20090)

Indexed As: Trimm v. Durham Regional Police Force et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ.

November 19, 1987.

Summary:

A police officer was charged with neglecting his duty for leaving his assigned patrol area without permission contrary to s. 1(c)(iii) of the Code of Offences under regulation 791 to the Police Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 381. He was also charged with refusing to walk his beat after being ordered to do so contrary to s. 1(b)(ii). Both offences were considered "major offences". The officer argued that the hearing of these offences before the presiding officer was not in accordance with his right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This submission was rejected by the presiding officer. The police officer applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed his application for review without reasons. The police officer appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 15 O.A.C. 279, dismissed the appeal. The police officer appealed again. Dickson, C.J.C., stated two constitutional questions for the court: 1. Does s. 11(d) of the Charter apply to police disciplinary proceedings under regulation 791 made under s. 74(1) of the Police Act (Ont.)?, and 2. If s. 11(d) does apply to these proceedings, is regulation 791 inconsistent with s. 11(d) and if so can it be justified by s. 1 of the Charter? The Supreme Court of Canada answered the first constitutional question in the negative and therefore dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 11 did not apply to disciplinary proceedings under regulation 791 because the proceedings were neither criminal in nature nor did they give rise to any true penal consequences. The court therefore found it unnecessary to consider question 2.

Also see: R. v. Wigglesworth, 81 N.R. 161; Burnham v. Toronto Police Force et al., 81 N.R. 207; Trumbley and Pugh et al. v. Toronto Police Force et al., 81 N.R. 212.

Civil Rights - Topic 3187

Trials - Due process - Fundamental justice and fair hearings - Non criminal proceedings - Right to independent and impartial tribunal - A police officer was charged with major offences under regulation 791 made pursuant to the Ontario Police Act - Under the Act the police force both charged and tried officers respecting alleged offences - An officer argued that this violated s. 11(d) of the Charter (right to an independent and impartial tribunal) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 11 did not apply to police disciplinary proceedings under regulation 791, because the proceedings were neither criminal in nature nor did they give rise to any true penal consequences.

Civil Rights - Topic 8305.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Section 11 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3187 above].

Civil Rights - Topic 8426

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Operation - Nature or true consequences test (s. 11) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3187 above].

Civil Rights - Topic 8545

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Charged with an offence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3187 above].

Police - Topic 4061

Internal organization - Discipline of members - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3187 above].

Police - Topic 4243

Internal organization - Discipline - Rights of officers - Charter rights - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3187 above].

Words and Phrases

Charged with an offence - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this phrase as it appeared in s. 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wigglesworth (1987), 81 N.R. 161, foll'd. [para. 5].

Burnham v. Toronto Police Force et al. (1987), 81 N.R. 207, refd to. [para. 5].

Trumbley and Pugh v. Toronto Police Force et al. (1987), 81 N.R. 212, refd to. [para. 5].

Colledge v. Niagara Regional Police Commission (1983), 40 O.R.(2d) 340, refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 11(d).

Police Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 381, generally; sect. 74(1)(a) [para. 4].

Police Act Regulations, R.R.O. 1980, reg. 791, generally; sect. 3, sect. 5(11), sect. 6, sect. 13, sect. 16, sect. 20 [para. 4]; Code of Offences, sect. 1 [para. 4]; sect. 1(b)(ii), sect. 1(c)(iii) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Aleksandr G. Bolotenko, for the appellant;

David J.D. Sims, Q.C., Alan J. McMackin and Mario Bouchard, for the respondents;

Julius Isaac, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada;

Dennis W. Brown, Q.C., and Michael W. Bader for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario;

Yves de Montigny and Franeoise Saint-Martin, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec;

Grant Garneau, for the intervener the Attorney General for New Brunswick.

Solicitors of Record:

Aitchison, Starzynski, Evans & Bolotenko, Oshawa, for the appellant;

Sims, Brady & McInerney, Whitby, for the respondents;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario;

Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General for New Brunswick, Fredericton, for the intervener the Attorney General for New Brunswick.

This appeal was heard on March 4, 5 and 6, 1987, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was rendered in both official languages by Wilson, J., on November 19, 1987: