Trumbley v. Toronto Police, (1984) 5 O.A.C. 368 (DC)
|Judge:||Galligan, Montgomery and O'Brien, JJ.|
|Court:||Superior Court of Justice of Ontario|
|Case Date:||September 07, 1984|
|Citations:||(1984), 5 O.A.C. 368 (DC)|
Trumbley v. Toronto Police (1984), 5 O.A.C. 368 (DC)
MLB headnote and full text
Trumbley and Pugh v. Fleming, Ackroyd, Marks and The Metropolitan Toronto Police Force
Indexed As: Trumbley and Pugh v. Toronto Police Force et al.
Ontario Divisional Court
Galligan, Montgomery and O'Brien, JJ.
September 7, 1984.
Two police officers were charged with discreditable conduct contrary to the Code of Offences contained in Regulation 791 under the Police Act. The officers applied to stop the hearing of the charges against them on a number of grounds.
The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the officers' application.
Civil Rights - Topic 3180
Trials, due process and fair hearings - Administrative and non-criminal proceedings - Fair hearing - What constitutes - Two police officers were charged under the Police Act Regulations with discreditable conduct - They argued that the in-house disciplinary tribunal that was to hear the charges was not independent and impartial and to submit to its jurisdiction was a violation of s. 11(d) of the Charter - The Ontario Divisional Court discussed a test to determine if a tribunal is impartial and independent and determined that the disciplinary tribunal was impartial and independent - See paragraphs 11 to 13.
Criminal Law - Topic 5278
Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Admissibility - Prosecutions under provincial statutes - Code of Offences (Police Act, Ont.) - Two police officers were charged under the Police Act Regulations with discreditable conduct - It was argued that certain evidence obtained by the use of a wire tap interception (body pack) was inadmissible in the disciplinary proceedings under the provincial statute because such evidence was inadmissible under the Criminal Code - The Ontario Divisional Court held that such evidence was admissible at common law and there was nothing in the law of evidence in Ontario which rendered inadmissible the wiretap evidence - See paragraphs 7 to 10.
Police - Topic 4265
Internal organization - Discipline procedure - Charge - Duplicity or multiplicity - Two police officers were charged under the Police Act Regulations with discreditable conduct - The officers alleged that the charge against them was void for duplicity or multiplicity - The Ontario Divisional Court examined the charge and held that it was sufficient and valid - See paragraphs 3 to 6.
R. v. City of Sault Ste Marie (1978), 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353, appld. [para. 4].
Reliable Toy Co. Ltd. v. Collins,  O.R. 360, ref'd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Foll, 19 W.W.R.(N.S.) 661 affd. 21 W.W.R.(N.S.) 481, ref'd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Valente (No. 2) (1983), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 417, ref'd to. [para. 12].
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 11(d) [para. 11].
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, Part IV.1, generally [para. 8].
Police Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 381, Regulation 791, Code of Offences [para. 1].
E.G. Spong, for applicant Trumbley;
D.A. Quirt, for applicant Pugh;
R.M. Parker, Q.C., for the respondents;
L.N. Gottheil, for Intervenor Metropolitan Toronto Police Association;
D.W. Brown, Q.C., for Intervenor A.G. of Ontario.
This application was heard on September 4 and 5, 1984, before Galligan, Montgomery and O'Brien, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following decision of the Divisional Court was delivered orally by Galligan, J., and released on September 7, 1984:
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP