I do hope

Share Button

Perry has now spent 81 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children!

****

Sorting out documents, trying to sort out how a complaint against Constable Heidi Sebalj morphed into charges under the Police Services Act against Constable Perry Dunlop.  I have yet to find a Citizens Complaint filed by Dave against Perry.  Everything carries the same file number:  C.C. 94—01.  That’s the file number for Dave’s Citizen’s Complaint against Sebalj.

Is this kosher?

Why is the file number on the Board of Inquiry proceedings against Perry C.C. 94-01?

Who, if not David Silmser, initiated the investigation which turned into charges against Perry?  If it was A/Chief Carl Johnston why was the file not re-categorized?  Seems to me the moment Constable Sebalj was officially exonerated that should have been the end of file C.C.  94-01?

Why was Constable Heidi Sebalj not disciplined for allowing other officers to see David Silmser’s victim statement?

I will post more tomorrow. I have S/Sgt. Garry Derochie’s statement from his final report on the initial investigation scanned and converted to a text file.  My copy is so badly marked that I couldn’t post as is. I’ll get that up first thing this morning.

They can say what they want and deny it all they want but there is no longer a shred of doubt in my mind that for whatever reason they were after Perry.

I still can’t help but wonder where Colin McKinnon fits into this.  He was obviously close enough to former Chief Shaver that he represented Shaver personally both before and after Shaver’s retirement.  It was, after all,  McKinnon who went after Carson Chisholm and the Seaway News (scroll down) on Shaver’s behalf.

Anyway, I’ll carry on. The following documents have been added to the Heidi Sebalj page:

  07 February 1994: S/Sgt. G. Derochie: Statement of S/Sergeant G. Derochie in David Silmser Matter
08 February 1994: Cst Michael Quinn.: 11. Summaries of Statements Obtained During This Investigation (Final report to Include Summaries of All Statements Obtained): Statement From Constable M. Quinn. 

09 February 1994:  D/C J. St. Denis: 11. Summaries of Statements Obtained During This Investigation (Final report to Include Summaries of All Statements Obtained): Statement – Deputy Chief St. Denis.

21 February 1994 Cst. Brian Snyder: 11. Summaries of Statements Obtained During This Investigation (Final report to Include Summaries of All Statements Obtained): Statement: Cst. B. Snyder. 

31 March 1994:  Cst. J. Parisien: 11. Summaries of Statements Obtained During This Investigation (Final report to Include Summaries of All Statements Obtained): Statement: Constable J. Parisien. 

Keep an eye on New to the Site on the Home page.  I will list new postings there as they go up.

****

The schedule for next week is up.  Hearings resume on Monday afternoon, 12 May 2008. No dates specified for anything.  Note an ODE to Perry is in the offing.  That I am sure will be a dandy.  I keep thinking they can’t malign and disparage the man any further and am constantly surprised.  There is no end to it.  But, maybe, maybe it’ll be worth the while if in the process we learn how Perry managed to get the brunt of the stick after a Citizen’s Complaint was filed against Heidi Sebaj?

I see too that S/Sgt. Derochie is being called back. I do hope while he’s there someone asks him to explain how the CPS conducts Citizen’s Complaints against one police officer which mysteriously morph into charges against another.  And I do hope some asks how well he knows Justice Colin McKinnon.  And if he knows how often McKinnon was in Cornwall?  And if knows if McKinnon ever hit the links with the Chief.  And if he knows if McKinnon ever attended CPS social functions and/or socialized with CPS officers. And if he knows if McKinnon knows the Ottawa police officers who conducted the January ’94 swish-bang “investigation” and concluded there was no cover-up without so much as entertaining the thought that Chief Claude Shaver might be party to a cover-up. The Ottawa investigating officer Brian Skinner knew Shaver.  Did McKinnon know Skinner too?  Not unlikely is it?   These are questions which need to be asked ……but no one seems too terribly interested in digging into anyone’s contacts but Perry’s.

I do hope someone asks Derochie exactly what was done and what was said when he and McKinnon and Crown Shelley Hallett went over to the police station on 19 February 2001 to “refresh” the judge’s failed memory.  Where did they look?  How long did it take? How many documents were unearthed?  What did McKinnon say?

And I do hope someone gets confirmation from Derochie that the CPS did indeed waive solicitor-client privilege .  That means that all McKinnon-related documents must be disclosed! It also means McKinnon should be on the stand answering questions about his involvement, legally and otherwise, every step of the way

On that note, here’s the roster for the week

Motion for Supplementary Funding – Citizens for Community Renewal

Garry Derochie – Staff Sergeant, Cornwall Community Police Service

Robert Burnie – Sergeant, Cornwall Community Police Service

Brian Snyder – Staff Sergeant, Cornwall Community Police Service

Jeff Carroll – Detective Sergeant, Cornwall Community Police Service

Rene Desrosiers – Constable, Cornwall Community Police Service

Perry Dunlop – Overview of Documentary Evidence

Ron Lefebvre
– Special Constable, Cornwall Community Police Service

There was talk last week that Lefebvre might not be testifying. I don’t know if that’s changed or not.

****

Don’t forget to get AIR MILES for Helen.  There is an on-going and desperate need for cross-country air travel for Helen and the girls.

And the financial need is stronger than ever.   Helen is now on disability with a bad back which just isn’t improving.  She is in a lot of pain.  Despite the pain she was actually hoping to get back to work a few half-days a week .  She was told by her doctor ‘absolutely not.’ Funds can be deposited at TD Canada Trust or sent directly to Helen.

And, of course, mail.  Keep those cards and letters going.  And, don’t forget,  20 May 2008 is Perry & Helen’s Wedding Anniversary. Make the day a little easier for both to bear with a note or a card.  Funny cards are good too.  Perry has a great sense of humour 🙂  He needs a good laugh from time to time these days.

Finally, keep the whole family close to your heart and in your prayers.  And special prayers for “Nan”  that by some miracle of compassion she will have a chance to see her one and only grandson one more time before she draws her last breath.   Please call your MP and/or MPP and anyone who can do what is necessary to make a dying woman’s wish a reality.
Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to I do hope

  1. RealityChecker says:

    Dave Silmser responds that the first he ever heard of Perry Dunlop was when his lawyer received a copy of the final investigation report. He had no idea who Perry Dunlop was prior to this nor did he know WHO the woman was trying to contact him to discuss his withdrawl of charges against Fr. Charlie. He shows Constable Sebalj a small piece of paper with a name and telephone number on it (The Dunlops) BUT in Sebalj’s statements she indicates that she DOES NOT let Silmser know that she knows WHO Helen Dunlop is. Sebalj then goes running to Brunet. Silmser, at this point, still does not know WHO the Dunlops are.

    So….how did Silmser file a formal public complaint against Perry Dunlop supposedly on January 21, 1994 if Dave Silmser didn’t have a clue WHO the Dunlops were???

  2. RealityChecker says:

    Okay lets try to figure out what McKinnon was trying to do ….. http://theinquiry.ca/McKinnon%20to%20Brendan%20Wells.pdf

    The Police Services Act
    Notice of Disciplinary Hearings
    To: Constable Perry Dunlop No. 076
    “It is alledged that you are guilty of misconduct contrary to Section 56 of the Police Services Act, 1990”

    Here’s what SECTION 56 of the POLICE SERVICES ACT 1990 says…

    PART 5
    DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
    56. A police officer is guilty of misconduct if he or she,
    (a)commits an offence described in a prescribed code of conduct;
    (b) contravenes section 46 (political activities);
    (c) engages in an activity that contravenes subsection 49(1) (secondary activities) without the permission of his or her chief of police, being aware that the activity may contravene that subsection;
    (d) contravenes subsection 55(5)(resignation during emergency);
    (e) contravenes section 57 (including midconduct, witholding services);
    (f) contravenes subsection 96(4)(photography at a hearing);
    (g) contravenes subsection 100(6)(Obstructing Police Complaints Commissioner);
    (h) contravenes subsection 108(2) (confidentiality);
    (i) contravenes section 117 (trade union membership);
    (j) deals with personal property, other than money or firearm, in a manner that is not consistent with section 132;
    (k) deals with money in a manner that is not consistent with section 133;
    (l) deals with a firearm in a manner that is not consistent with section 134
    (m) contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 15 (equipment), 16(use of force), 17(standards of dress, police uniforms) 20 (police pursuits) or 21 (records) of subsection 135(1).R.S.O.,c.P.15,s.56

    If we continue in McKinnon’s unsigned NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE HEARING addressed to Constable Perry Dunlop and the final page in the linked documents you will see that there are 3 specific charges McKinnon lays out against Dunlop under THE SCHEDULE CODE OF OFFENCES described in Regulation 791 of the Police Act R.S.O. 1980. He is attempting to charge Dunlop with…1. Discreditable Conduct (Section 1(a)(i) acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Police Force) and 2. Breach of Confidence (Section 1 (e)(i) and (e)(vi) – divulges any matter which is his duty to keep secret (I can’t find the specific as to what (e)(vi) is).

    Regardless, TAKE NOTE, The Schedule Code of Offences described in Regulation 791 of the Police Act R.S.O. 1980.
    TAKE NOTE OF THE R.S.O. 1980!

    1980!!!

    NOT 1990!!!

    The Ontario Police Act R.S.O.1980 ceased being in 1990! A NEW police act came into being – the Ontario Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990 – with lots of changes especially with conduct issues – disciplinary issues and Public Complaints issues.

    However, seems McKinnon is somewhat crafty and sly and was bound and determined to nail Dunlop charging him under the pre 1990 Police Services Act BECAUSE according to him the Schedule Code of Offences described in Regulation 791 Police Act R.S.O 1980 continued in force under Section 15 of the Interpretation Act R.S.O. 1990.

    I don’t know anything about the Interpretation Act R.S.O. 1990. In fact I have NEVER heard of it. Who says the Schedule Code of Offences from an 1980’s Police Act is still in force – Justice Collin McKinnon???

    Quite frankly – I don’t believe him!!! I think it’s HIS interpretation and NOT the laws/legislation’s interpretation!!!

    It was a sly way of charging Perry Dunlop – that’s my opinion!

  3. RealityChecker says:

    BTW….I think there were further changes to the Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990 in or about ’97 or ’98….but I haven’t gotten that far YET!!!

  4. RealityChecker says:

    Here’s some of the Code of Offences from Regulation 791 of the Police Act 1980 – BIG difference from the 1980 Police Act to 1990 Police Services Act. I got this exerpt from CanII related to a lawsuit. I do have a hard copy of the Police Services Act R.S.O.1990 but don’t know how to scan it.

    Reg. 791. “CODE OF OFFENCES”

    (a) DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT,

    (i) acts in a disorderly manner, or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force,

    (ii) is guilty of oppressive or tyrannical conduct towards an inferior in rank,

    (iv) wilfully or negligently makes any false complaint or statement against any member of a police force,

    (vii) is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable upon summary conviction under the Criminal Code (Canada), or

    (b) INSUBORDINATION,

    (ii) without lawful excuse, disobeys, omits or neglects to carry out any

    (c) NEGLECT of DUTY,

    (i) without lawful excuse, neglects or omits promptly and diligently to perform a duty as a member of the police force,

    (iii) fails to work in accordance with orders, or leaves an area, detach­ment, detail or other place of duty, without due permission or sufficient cause,

    (xi) is improperly dressed, dirty or untidy in person, clothing or equipment while on duty;

    (d) DECEIT

    (i) knowingly makes or signs a false statement in an official document or book,

    (e) BREACH OF CONFIDENCE

    (i) divulges any matter which it is his duty to keep secret,

    (iii) without proper authority communicates to the public press or to any unauthorized person any matter connected with the police force,

    (v) makes any anonymous communication to the chief of police or superior officer or authority,

    (f) CORRUPT PRACTICE

    (i) takes a bribe,

    (ii) fails to account for or to make a prompt, true return of money or property received in an official capacity,

    (g) UNLAWFUL OR UNNECESSARY EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY

    (i) without good and sufficient cause makes an unlawful or unnecessary arrest,

    (iii) is uncivil to a member of the public;

    (h) DAMAGE TO CLOTHING OR EQUIPMENT

    (ii) fails to report waste, loss or damage however caused;

    (i) CONSUMING INTOXICATING LIQUOR IN A MANNER PREJUDICIAL TO DUTY

    (i) while on duty is unfit for duty through drinking intoxicating liquor, or

    (j) LENDING MONEY TO A SUPERIOR; OR

    (k) BORROWING MONEY FROM OR ACCEPTING A PRESENT FROM ANY INFERIOR IN RANK.

    The code applies to every police force (s. 4 of the regulation).

    Section 6 of the regulation provides how a charge against a police officer is commenced. It reads:

    6. Any constable or other police officer may lay a complaint before a chief of police or any officer designated by him under section 3, alleging an offence in accordance with the code and the chief of police or designated officer shall consider the allegations in the complaint and, where he considers that the allegations so warrant, he shall sign the charge sheet.

    Section 3, referred to in s. 6, provides:

    3. The chief of police may designate the deputy chief of police or, where the rank of inspector is established, any other officer of the rank of inspector or higher, who may exercise the powers and perform the duties of the chief of police in the hearing and disposition of charges.

    Section 5 contains provisions concerned with the commencement of a proceeding. Three of them are:

    5(1) Where a constable or other police officer is charged with an offence against the code, the charge shall be in writing on a charge sheet and a true copy of the charge sheet shall be served, as soon as is practicable, upon the person charged, together with a statement of the allegations upon which the charge is founded.

    (3) The charge sheet shall be signed by the chief of police, or an officer designated by him, and shall show the date upon which it is so signed.

    (11) The charge shall specifically designate whether the offence is minor or major.

    The “presiding officer” is defined in s. 2(h) as meaning:

    (h) … a chief of police, an acting chief of police, or an officer designated by the chief of police under section 3.

    Section 13 provides for who “shall have conduct of the hearing against the person charged” and for particular aspects of the procedure. It reads:

    13(1) A chief of police may designate a counsel, constable or other police officer who shall have conduct of the hearing against the person charged and, in the conduct of the hearing, the person so designated may,

    (a) examine and cross-examine witnesses;

    (b) sum up the evidence in support of the charge; and

    (c) before the final verdict is rendered, at the direction of or with the consent of the chief of police, withdraw the charge.

    (2) The constable or other police officer designated under subsection (1) shall be of equal rank to or higher rank than the person charged.

    (3) The person charged is entitled to make his full answer and defence to the charge and, for such purpose, may examine and cross-examine witnesses and make representations on his behalf, either personally or by his counsel or agent.

    With respect to the trial of minor offences, s. 16(3) provides:

    16(3) Where the presiding officer has heard the person charged, the witnesses and any representations made, he shall, after considering the matter, convict the person charged or dismiss the charge, as the case may be.

    Section 17(3) is an identical provision respecting major offences.

    Section 16(4) provides:

    16(4) A person found guilty of a minor offence is liable to,

    (a) an admonition; or

    (b) forfeiture of leave or days off not exceeding five days; or

    (c) forfeiture of pay not exceeding three days pay.

    Section 20(2) provides:

    20(2) A person found guilty of a major offence is liable to,

    (a) dismissal; or

    (b) be required to resign, and in default of resigning within seven days, to be summarily dismissed from the force; or

    (c) reduction in rank or gradation of rank; or

    (d) forfeiture of leave or days off not exceeding twenty days; or

    (e) forfeiture of pay not exceeding five days pay; or

    (f) a reprimand, which may be imposed in lieu of or in addition to any other punishment imposed.

    With respect to minor offences s. 16(7) provides:

    16(7) Where the presiding officer designated by the chief of police hears and decides a charge and imposes a punishment, the chief of police shall, within seven days, review the decision and punishment and either confirm or quash the conviction and he may confirm, mitigate, commute or remit any or all punishments imposed and shall forthwith notify the convicted person in writing of his decision.

    Section 17(7) makes the same provision with respect to major offences.

    There are appeal provisions for persons found guilty of offences, both minor and major, to the board of commissioners of police or, where there is no board, to a committee of the municipal council, and from the decisions of these bodies to the Ontario Police Commission. See generally ss. 16(9), (15), 19(1), 20(3), and 24.

    Possible variations in the procedure with respect to major offences can be found in ss. 17(6) and 18 which read:

    17(6) The chief of police may refer the charge for hearing before the board, or where there is no board, the committee of council and the provisions of this Part that apply to the hearing of a charge by the chief of police or a presiding officer designated by him apply with necessary modifications to the hearing of a charge by the board or committee of council.

    18(1) Upon notice to the person charged, other than a chief of police, a board, or where there is no board, a committee of council, may designate a county court judge, a district court judge or a provincial court judge (criminal division) who consents to the designation to hear a charge or appeal that the board or committee of council may hear.

    (2) The provisions of this Part that apply to the hearing of a charge or an appeal by a board or committee of council apply with necessary modifications to a hearing by a judge designated under subsection (1),

    (3) The judge designated under subsection (1) shall hear and determine the charge and where the accused is found guilty of an offence against the code shall impose a punishment authorized by this Part or shall hear and determine the appeal, as the case may be,

    (4) The decision of the judge shall be deemed to be the decision of the board or committee of council that designated such judge.

    Section 27 of the regulation is important. It contains several provisions relating to the nature of the tenure of a police officer. It reads:

    27. No chief of police, constable or other police officer is subject to any penalty under this Part except after a hearing and final disposition of a charge on appeal as provided by this Part, or after the time for appeal has expired, but nothing herein affects the authority of a board or council,

    (a) subject to the consent of the Commission, to dispense with the services of any member of a police force for the purpose of reducing the size of or abolishing the police force, where the reduction or abolition is not in contravention of the Act;

    (b) to dispense with the services of any constable within eighteen months of his becoming a constable;

    (b) to make rules or regulations for the retirement of members of the police force who are entitled to a pension under a pension plan established for the members of the force, under which the munici­pality contributes an amount not less than 5 per cent of the amount of the salaries of the members participating in the plan, and to retire the members in accordance with those rules or regulations;

    (c) to act in accordance with a report or recommendation of the Commission made under section 2$ [relating to the performance of a police officer’s duties]; or to discharge or place on retirement, if he is entitled thereto, any member of the force who, on the evidence of two legally qualified medical practitioners is, due to mental or physical disability, incapable of performing his duties in a manner fitted to satisfy the requirements of his position but any decision of the board or council made pursuant to this clause may be appealed to the Commission,

  5. RealityChecker says:

    POLICE SERVICES ACT
    Revised Statutes Of Ontario, 1990
    Chapter P.15

    as ammended by 1991, Chapter 12

    May 1992

    PART V
    DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

    56. A police officer is guilty of misconduct if he or she,
    (a)commits an offence described in a prescribed code of conduct;
    (b) contravenes section 46 (political activities);
    (c) engages in an activity that contravenes subsection 49(1) (secondary activities) without the permission of his or her chief of police, being aware that the activity may contravene that subsection;
    (d) contravenes subsection 55(5)(resignation during emergency);
    (e) contravenes section 57 (including midconduct, witholding services);
    (f) contravenes subsection 96(4)(photography at a hearing);
    (g) contravenes subsection 100(6)(Obstructing Police Complaints Commissioner);
    (h) contravenes subsection 108(2) (confidentiality);
    (i) contravenes section 117 (trade union membership);
    (j) deals with personal property, other than money or firearm, in a manner that is not consistent with section 132;
    (k) deals with money in a manner that is not consistent with section 133;
    (l) deals with a firearm in a manner that is not consistent with section 134
    (m) contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 15 (equipment), 16(use of force), 17(standards of dress, police uniforms) 20 (police pursuits) or 21 (records) of subsection 135(1).R.S.O.,c.P.15,s.56

    57.-(1) No person, including a member of the police force, shall,
    (a) induce or attempt to induce a member of a police force to withold his or her services; or
    (b) induce or attempt to induce a police officer to commit misconduct.
    (2) No member of a police force shall withold his or her services.
    (3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both.
    (4) No prosecution shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Solicitor General R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s.57.

    58.-(1) Any apparent or alleged misconduct by a police officer shall be investigated by his or her chief of police.
    (2) When a complaint is made under Part VI with respect to apparent or alleged misconduct by a police officer, the following rules apply:
    1. The complaint shall be dealt with in accordance with Part VI, and recourse shall be had to this Part only as Part VI permits.
    2. Any investigation of the matter under this Part and any hearing under section 60 are suspended as soon as the chief of police becomes aware that a complaint has been made. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s.58.

    59.-(1) If the chief of police investigates apparent or alledged misconduct and concludes that the police officer is guilty of misconduct but that the misconduct is not of a serious nature, the following rules apply:
    1. The chief of police shall provide the police officer with reasonable information concerning the matter and shall give him or her the opportunity to reply, orally or in writing.
    2. The chief of police may then admonish the police officer and may cause an entry concerning the matter, the action taken and the police officer’s reply to be made in his or her employment record.
    3. If the officer refuses to accept the admonition, the chief of police shall not cause particulars to be recorded without first holding a hearing.
    (2) An entry made in the police officer’s employment record under paragraph 2 of subsection (1) shall be expunged from the record two years after being made if during that time no other entries concerning misconduct have been made in the record under this Part or Part VI.
    (3) Nothing in this section affects agreements between boards and police officers or associations that permit other penalties than admonition to be administered, if the police officer in question consents, without a hearing under section 60. E.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 59.

    60.-(1) A chief of police may hold a hearing to determine whether a police officer belonging to his or her police force is guilty of misconduct.
    (2) The chief of police shall designate to be prosecuter at the hearing,
    (a) a police officer of the rank of sargeant or higher:
    (b) if there is none of that rank, a police officer of a rank equal to or higher than that of the police officer who is the subject of the hearing: or
    (c) a legal counsel.
    (3) the oral evidence given at the hearing shall be recorded and copies of the transcripts shall be provided on the same terms as in the Ontatio Court (General Division).
    (4) Before the hearing, the police officer shall be given an opportunity to examine any physical or documentary evidence that will be produced or any report whose contents will be given in evidence.
    (5) If the hearing is being conducted as a result of a complaint made under Part VI, the complaintant shall likewise be given an opportunity to examine evidence and reports before the hearing.
    (6) Despite Section 12 of the Statuatory Powers and Procedures Act, the police officer shall not be required to give evidence at the hearing.
    (7) In the case of a hearing that is being conducted as a result of a complaint made under Part VI, no statement made by the police officer or complaintant in the course of an attempt to resolve the complaint informally shall be admitted in evidence at the hearing, except with the consent of the person who made the statement.
    (8) The person conducting the hearing shall not communicate directly or indirectly in relation to the subject-matter of the hearing with any person or person’s counsel or representative, unless the police officer and the prosecuter receive notice and have an opportunity to participate.
    (9) However, the person conducting the hearing may seek legal advice from an advisor independant of the police officer and the prosecutor, and in that case the nature of the advice shall be communicated to them so that they may make submissions as to the law.
    (10) Within a reasonable time after the matter has been finally determined, documents and things put in evidence at the hearing shall, on request, be released to the person who produced them.
    (11) If the police officer is charged with an offence under the law of Canada or of a province or territory in connection with the alleged misconduct, the hearing shall continue unless the Crown Attorney advises the chief of police that it should be stayed until the conclusion of the court proceedings.
    (12) If six months have elapsed since the facts on which an allegation of misconduct is based first came to the attention of the chief of police, no notice of hearing shall be served unless the board (in the case of a municipal police officer)or the Comissioner (in the case of a member of the Ontario Provincial Police) is of the opinion that it was reasonable, under the circumstances, to delay serving the notice of hearing. R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15, s.60.

    61.-(1) If misconduct is proved at the hearing on clear and convincing evidence, the chief of police may,
    (a) dismiss the police officer from the police force;
    (b) direct that the police officer be dismissed in seven days unless he or she resigns before that time;
    (c) demote the police officer, specifying the manner and period of the demotion;
    (d) suspend the police officer without pay for a period not exceeding thirty days or 240 hours, as the case may be;
    (e) direct that the police officer forfeit not more than five days’ or forty hours’ pay, as the case may be; or
    (f) direct that the police officer forfeit not more than twenty days or 160 hours off, as the case may be.
    (2) Penalties imposed under clauses (1)(d), (e)and (f) shall be calculated in terms of days if the police officer normally works right hours a day or less and in terms of hours if he or she normally works more than eight hours a day.
    (3) Instead of or in addition to a penalty described in subsection (1), the chief of police may reprimand the police officer.
    (4) The chief of police shall not impose the penalties of dismissal or demotion unless the notice of hearing or a subsequent notice served on the police officer indicated that they might be imposed if the misconduct were proved on clear and convincing evidence.
    (5) The chief of police shall promptly give written notice of the decision, with reasons, to the police officer and, in the case of a municipal police force, to the board.
    (6) If the hearing was conducted as a result of a complaint made under Part VI, the chief of police shall also give notice of the decision, with reasons, to the complaintant and to the Police Complaints Commissioner.
    (7) No reference to the allegations of misconduct or the hearing shall be made in the police officer’s employment record, and the matter shall not be taken into account for any purpose relating to his or her employment, unless,
    (a) misconduct is proved on clear and convincing evidence; or
    (b) the police officer resigns before the matter is finally disposed of. R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15, s. 61.

    62.-(1) A board may hold a hearing to determine whether the chief of police is guilty of misconduct, and this Part applies with necessary mofifications.
    (2) The chief of police may, by serving a notice to that effect on the board and the Commission, require that the Comission hold the hearing insteas of the board. R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15, s. 62.

    63.-(1)A municipal police officer on whom a penalty is imposed under section 61 may appeal to the board by serving a notice of appeal on the board and the chief of police within fifteen days of receiving notice of the decision.
    (2) The board shall hear the appeal on the record, but may receive new or additional evidence as it considers just.
    (3) The board may confirm, alter or revoke the decision or may require the chief of police to rehear the matter.
    (4) The board shall promptly give written notice of it’s descision, with reasons, to the chief of police and the police officer.
    (5) No member of the board shall participate in the decision unless he or she was present throughout the hearing of the appeal and, except with the police officer’s consent, no decision of the board shall be given unless all members who were present throughout the hearings participate in the decision.
    (6) The members of the board who participate in the decision shall not communicate directly or indirectly in relation to the subject-matter of the appeal with any person’s counsel or representative, unless the police officer and the chief of police receive notice and have an opportunity to participate.
    (7) However, the board may seek legal advice from an advisor independant of the police officer and chief of police, and in that case the nature of the advice shall be communicated to them so that they may make submissions as to the law.
    (8) The police officer may appeal to the Commission from the board’s decision by serving notice of appeal on the Commission, the board and the chief of police within thirty days of receiving notice of the decision. R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15, s.63.

    64. Instead of hearing a police officer’s appeal under section 63, the board may, on its own initiative or on the application of the police officer or the chief of police, require the Commission to hear the appeal. R.S.O. 1990, c.P15,s.64

    65. A member of the Ontario Provincial Police on whom a penalty is imposed under section 61 may appeal to the Comission by serving a weitten notice on the Commission and the Commissioner within thirty days of receiving notice of the decision. R.S.O. 1990,c.P.15,s.65

    66. If the hearing was conducted as a result of a public complaint made under Part VI, sections 63 and 65 do not apply and the police officer may appeal only in accordance with that Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 66

    67. Subsections 63(2) to (7) apply to appeals heard by the Comission as if references to the board were references to the Commission and, in the case of appeal from a board’s decision, as if references to the chief of police were references to the board. R.S.O. 1990, c. P 15, s. 67.

    68. The board or Commission may grant an extension of the time provided for giving it a notice of appeal, before or after the expiry of the time, and may give directions in connection with the extension. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 68

    69. A chief of police may authorize any member of the police force to exercise any power to perform any duty of the chief of police referred to in this Part, subject to the following rules;
    1. A hearing under section 60 shall be conducted by a police officer of the rank of Inspector or higher.
    2. A police officer from another police force who meets the requirements of paragraph 1 may conduct the hearing, with the approval of his or her chief of police.
    3. The measures referred to in subsection 59(1)(procedure in case of misconduct not of serious nature) shall be taken by a police officer of the rank of inspector or higher. R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, s. 69.

    70.-(1) A notice required to be given under this Part is sufficiently given if delivered personally or sent by prepaid registered mail addressed to the person.
    (2) Notice that is given by mail shall be deemed to be given on the fifth day after the day of mailing, unless the person to whom the notice is to be given establishes that he or she, acting in good faith, through absence, accident, illness, or other cause beyond his or her control failed to receive the notice until a later date. R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15, s. 70

    71.-(1) If a police officer is suspected or charged with an offence under a law of Canada or of a province or territory or is suspected of misconduct, the chief of police may suspend him or her from duty with pay.
    (2) The chief of police may revoke the suspension and later reimpose it, repeatedly if necessary, as he or she considers appropriate.
    (3) Unless the chief of police revokes the suspension, it shall continue until the final disposition of the proceeding in which the police officer’s conduct as at issue.
    (4) While suspended, the police officer shall not exercise any of the powers vested in him or her as a police officer or wear or use clothing or equipment that was issued to him or her in that capacity.
    (5) If a police officer is convicted of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the chief of police may suspend him or her without pay, even if the conviction or sentence is under appeal. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s.71

    72.-(1) If a police officer is suspended with pay, the pay for the period of suspension shall be reduced by the amount that he or she earns from other employment during that period.
    (2) Subsection(1) does not apply to earnings from other employment that was commenced before the period of suspension. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 72.

  6. RealityChecker says:

    Hang on….It gets worse if a PUBLIC COMPLAINT is launched against a Police Officer – Section VI of the Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990 is PUBLIC COMPLAINTS. It’s lengthy – will type it out later….

  7. RealityChecker says:

    I wonder WHAT any of the Police Asssociation/unions would think about McKinnon’s Interptetation Act??? Don’t think they’d be too pleased that in essence the Code of Conduct legislation pre 1990 is still in effect!!!

    “However, seems McKinnon is somewhat crafty and sly and was bound and determined to nail Dunlop charging him under the pre 1990 Police Services Act BECAUSE according to him the Schedule Code of Offences described in Regulation 791 Police Act R.S.O 1980 continued in force under Section 15 of the Interpretation Act R.S.O. 1990.”

  8. Sylvia says:

    Wow! A lot of work RealityCecker. Thank you 🙂 I need to read it carefully word for word to digest it. This is all new territory. Never in my wildest dreams did I foresee that we’d be digging into this dimension of saga!

    Your copy of the Police Service Act R.S.O. 1990 is 1992?

    Is there any possibility that there were amendments/revisions to relevant sections between ’92 and ’94? I do believe we need someone to get us a scanned copy of the Act, or at least relevant sections, as it existed in 1994, and also the relevant sections of the Act in 1980, and the Interpretations Act R.S.O. 1990.

    Is the Interpretations Act part of the Police Act? Or is a separate document completely? I don’t have a clue.

    It certainly looks as though McKinnon went to extremes to come up with something to lay charges. A few things caught my eye and crossed my mind as I was skimming. I need to read it carefully.

    Sylvia

  9. RealityChecker says:

    My copy of the Police Act is from May 1992. This is what would have been in effect in 1994 sans a few minor revisions that might have been added. There were no major changes to the Police Services Act until the late ’90s. OCCOPS came into effect sometime then and the Act was changed to accomodate.

    Remember too that McKinnon did this in his capacity as a LAWYER (not a justice)for Cornwall Police Services and the Ottawa Police Service so in other words his “interptetation” was NEVER challenged by a court of Canada. I honestly don’t think he would stand a chance in court or with any judge trying to pass this one off – that old Code of Conducts from a 1980 Act were still in effect regardless of what Act (the Interpretation Act R.S.O.1990)he tried to use.
    Disciplinary hearings are NOT courts of law even though they may seem similiar – so this was NEVER challenged.

  10. RealityChecker says:

    BTW Sylvia – I’m digging because I honestly believe Perry Dunlop was unjustly SET UP.

    He has stated time and time again – No one listened to him for 15 years – well I’M LISTENING TO HIM!!!

  11. RealityChecker says:

    PART VI
    PUBLIC COMPLAINTS

    73.-(1) In this Part,
    “bureau” means the public complaints investigation bureau of a police force; (“bureau”)
    “Commissioner” means the Police Complaints Commissioner appointed under section 99 (“commissionaire”)
    (2) In this Part, unless the context indicates otherwise, a reference to a police officer is a reference to the police officer who is the subject of a complaint. E.S.O. 1990.c.P.15,s.73.

    74. This Part shall be administered by the Attorney General.R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.74.

    75.Complaints by members of the police about the conduct of police officers shall be dealt with in accordance to this Part. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.75

    76.-(1) Every chief of police shall establish and maintain a public complaints investigation bureau.
    (2) The chief of police shall ensure that the bureau is supplied with sufficient staff to perform its duties effectively.
    (3) If the police force has fewer than twenty police officers, the bureau of another police force may, under an agreement made in accordance with section 7 (municipal agreements for sharing police services) or 10 (municipal agreements for provision of police services by O.P.P.), act as the first-named police force’s bureau as well; in that case, subsection (1) and (2) do not apply. R.S.O.1990, c.P.15,s.76

    INITIAL HANDLING OF A COMPLAINT
    77.-(1) A member of the public may make a complaint about the conduct of a police officer, orally or in writing,
    (a) at the bureau of the police force to which the complaint relates, or at a station or detachment of that police force; or
    (b) at an office of the Commissioner; or
    (c) at any bureau, police station or detachment.
    (2) The person who receives the complaint shall record it on a form provided by the Commissioner and shall give a copy of the completed form to the person who makes the complaint.
    (3) The person who makes the complaint shall also be given a statement, in a form provided by the Commissioner, that sets out the procedures followed in dealing with a complaint and describes the rights of a complaintant.
    (4) The person on duty who is in charge of a place when a complaint is received shall,
    (a) take all reasonable steps to ensure that evidence that might otherwise be lost is secured immediately;
    (b) if he or she considers it appropriate, ensure that a preliminary investigation is conducted immediately; and
    (c) ensure that a report on the evidence and on the preliminary investigation, if any, is forthwith prepared and attached to the complaint.
    (5) The person who records the complaint shall forewith send copies of it,
    (a) to the bureau, the chief of police and the Commissioner, in the case of a complaint made at a station or detachment of the police force to which it relates;
    (b) to the chief of police and the Commissioner, in the case of a complaint made at the bureau of the police force to which it relates;
    (c) to the bureau and the chief of police of the police force to which it relates, in the case of a complaint mafe an an office of the Commissioner;
    (d) to the Commissioner, in the case of a complaint made at the bureau, station or detachment of a different police force than the one to which it relates.
    (6) If a complaint was made at a bureau, station or detachment of a different police force than the one to which it relates, the Commissioner shall forthwith send copies of the complaint and any report prepared under subsection (4) to the appropriate bureau.
    (7) A complaint that is made more than six months after an incident to which it relates shall be further dealt with under this Part only if the Commissioner so directs. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.77.

    78.-(1) In exceptional circumstances, the Attorney General may direct the Commissioner to make a complaint about the conduct of a police officer.
    (2) The Commissioner shall cause the complaint to be recorded and shall send copies to the bureau and the chief of police of the force to which it relates.
    (3) The Commissioner is the complaintant in the case of a complaint made under this section.
    (4) Subsection 77(7) and sections 80 (notice to potential complaintant), 81 (classification of complaint), 82 (reclassification), 83 (informal resolution) and 85 (decision by chief of police re no further action) do not apply to complaints made under this section. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.78.

    79.-(1) When the bureau receives a complaint, the person in charge shall forthwith give the police officer notice of the substance of the complaint, unless in the person’s opinion to do so might prejudice the investigation.
    (2) The notice shall be written on a form provided by the Commissioner. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.79.

    80.-(1) If a complaint is made by a person who was not directly affected by the incident and did not observe it, the Commissioner shall, as soon as possible after receiving the complaint, attempt to find the person who was directly affected by the incident or who observed it and send him or her a notice.
    (2) The notice shall indicate that a complaint has been made, that the person is entitled to be the complaintant in the matter and that the complaint will not be dealt with further unless he or she is the complaintant.
    (3) The notice shall also include information about the procedures followed in dealing with a complaint and the rights of a complaintant.
    (4) The complaint shall not be further dealt with under this Part if,
    (a) no person who was directly affected by the incident or who observed it can be found; or
    (b) the person to whom the Commissioner sends the notice does not, within thirty days of the date on which it is sent, file with the Commissioner a request to be the complaintant in the matter.
    (5) However, if a disciplinary proceeding is commenced against the police officer on respect of the complaint, the chief of police shall notify the Commissioner of the proceeding and of its result, and the Commissioner shall then notify the person who made the complaint.
    (6) If the person to whom the Commissioner sends the notice files a request to be the complaintant in the matter after the thirty day period referred to in subsection (4), the Commissioner may cause the matter to be reopened despite the late filing if he or she considers it advisable to do so. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.80.

    81.-(1) When the bureau receives a complaint, the person in charge shall consider whether it relates to possible misconduct under section 56, to other matters or to both.
    (2) If the person in charge is of the opinion that all or part of the complaint relates only to other matters than possible misconduct, he or she may, with the Commissioner’s consent, classify the complaint or part of the complaint as an inquiry.
    (3) When all or part of a complaint has been classified as an inquiry, the person in charge shall forewith notify the complaintant and the police officer of the fact and may cause the inquiey to be investigated.
    (4) Not more than sixty [days?] after the bureau receives the original complaint, the person in charge shall send the complaintant a written response to the inquiry and shall also send the Commissioner a copy of the response, together with a summary of the results of any investigation.
    (5) A complaint or part of a complaint that is classified as an inquiry and not reclassified as a complaint and that is subject of a response under this section need not be dealt with further under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s.81.

    82.-(1) During the course of the investigation of an inquiry, if the person in charge concludes that all or part of it relates to possible misconduct, he or she may reclassify the inquiry or part of the inquiry as a complaint.
    (2) After receiving a summary of the results of the investigation of an inquiry, the Commissioner may direct the person in charge to reclassify all or part of it as a complaint.
    (3) The person in charge shall forthwith notify the complaintant and the police officer of the reclassification, and shall also notify the Commissioner in the case of a reclassification under subsection (1).
    (4) An inquiry or part of an inquiry that is reclassified as a complaint shall be dealt with as such under this Part. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.82.

    INFORMAL RESOLUTION AND WITHDRAWL
    83.-(1) If the complaintant and the police officer consent, the complaint can be resolved informally by the person in charge of the bureau, before the chief of police gives notice of a decision under section 90, or by the Commissioner after that time.
    (2) If a board of inquiry has begun to hear evidence or argument in respect of the complaint, its consent is also required for an informal resolution.
    (3) When a complaint is resolved informally, the resolution shall be recorded on a form provided by the Commissioner and signed by the complaintant and police officer.
    (4) Copies of the record shall be provided to the complaintant and the police officer, and to the Commissioner if the complaint was resolved by the person in charge of the bureau.
    (5) If the Commissioner is of the opinion that the informal resolution is the result of a misunderstanding or a threat or other improper pressure, he or she may decide that the complaint shall continue to dealt with under this Part despite the informal resolution.
    (6) The Commissioner shall give notice of the decision, with reasons, to the complaintant, the police officer, the chief of police and the person in charge of the bureau. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.83.

    84.-(1) The person may withdraw the complaint by giving notice of withdrawl to the person in charge of the bureau, before the chief of police gives notice of a decision under section 90, or to the Commissioner after that time.
    (2) If the complaint was made under section 78, the Commissioner may withdraw it by giving notice of withdrawl to the chief of police and a copy to the police officer; subsection(3) applies to withdrawl but subsections (4) and (7) do not.
    (3) If a board of inquiry has begun to hear evidence or argument in respect of the complaint, it shall not be withdrawn without the board’s consent.
    (4) A copy of the notice to withdrawl shall be provided to the police officer, and to the Commissioner if the person in charge of the bureau received this notice.
    (5) The notice of withdrawl shall be written on a form provided by the Commissioner.
    (6) If the Commissioner is of the opinion that the withdrawl is the result of a misunderstanding or a threat or other improper pressure, he or she may decide that the complaint shall continue to be dealt with under this Part despite the withdrawl.
    (7) The Commissioner shall give notice of the decision, with reasons, to the complaintant, the police officer, the chief of police and the person in charge of the bureau. R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, s. 84.

    POWERS OF CHIEF OF POLICE
    85.-(1) At any time before making a decision under section 90, the chief of police may decide that the complaint or part of it shall not be further dealt with under this Part, if he or she is of the opinion that the complaint or part is frivolous and vexatious or made in bad faith.
    (2) The chief of police shall give the Commissioner, the complaintant and the police officer notice of the decision. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.85

    86.-(1) The chief of police may commence or continue a disciplinary proceeding against a police officer under Part V even if,
    (a) the complaint is withdrawn or resolved informally; or
    (b) the complaint is not to be further dealt with under this Part because of subsection 77(7)(complaint filed more than six months after incident) or section 80(complaint made by person not directly affected), or because of a decision by the chief of police under section 85.
    (2) The chief of police shall give the Commissioner and the complaintant notice of a decision to commence or continue a disciplinary proceeding in the circumstances desctibed in subsection (1), and shall also give them notice of the results of the proceeding. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.86.

    INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINT
    87.-(1) The person in charge of the bureau shall cause an investigation to be conducted into the complaint in accordance with prescribed procedures.
    (2) During the course of the investigation, the person in charge shall send the Commissioner, the complaintant and the police officer interim reports on the investigation at monthly intervals.
    (3) The first interim report shall be sent not more than thirty days after the bureau receives the complaint.
    (4) If there are no new matters to report, the person in charge may send the Commissiioner, the complaintant and the police officer a notice to that effect instead of an interim report.
    (5) The person in charge may withold an interim report from the complaintant or the police officer if, in his or her opinion, it is desirable to do so in order to avoid prejudicing the investigation, but in that case shall forthwith notify the Commissioner of the decision and the reasons for it.
    (6)When the investigation has been completed, the person in charge shall cause a final report to be prepared and shall send copies of it to the Commissioner, the chief of police, the complaintant and the police officer.
    (7) The final report shall contain,
    (a) summary of complaint, including a description of the police officer’s allefged misconduct;
    (b) a summary of the investigation, including summaries of the information obtained from the complaintant, the police officer and any witnesses; and
    (c) a description and analysis of any physical evidence obtained.
    (8) After receiving a final report, the Commissioner may require the chief of police to have the complaint investigated further.
    (9) A summary of the results of any further investigation shall be sent to the persons who received the final report.
    (10) The interim reports and final report shall be written on forms provided by the Commissioner. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.87.

    88.-(1) The Commissioner may conduct the investigation into the complaint, instead of the bureau,
    (a) for any reason, after receiving the first interim report or after the thirty-day period referred to in subsection 87(3) has expired;
    (b) if the complaintant has commenced a court proceeding against the police officer, the police force or the chief of police, the police services board or the municipality (in the case of a municipal police force) or Crown in the right of Ontario (in the case of the Ontario Provincial Police) in connection with the incident to which the complaint relates;
    (c) if the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that undue delay or other unusual circumstances have affected the bureau’s investigation or the preparation of its final report; or
    (d) if the chief of police requests that the Commissioner conduct the investigation.
    (2) The chief of police, if he or she becomes aware that the complaintant has commenced a court proceeding of the kind described in clause (1)(b) shall forwith notify the Commissioner of the fact.
    (3) If the complaint concerns more than one police force, the Commissioner shall conduct the investigation.
    (4) When the Commissioner decides to conduct the investigation, he or she shall forthwith notify the chief of police, giving reasons in the case of a decision under clause (1)(a) or (c).
    (5) When the Commissioner notifies the chief of police of a decision to conduct the investigation, the person in charge of the bureau shall forthwith end any investigation begun by the bureau and send to the Commissioner the evidence that has been gathered and the documents relating to the complaint.
    (6) Section 87 applies to the Commissioner’s investigation, with the necessary modifications, except that the Commissioner shall send the first interim report not more than thirty days after giving notice of the decision to confuct the investigation. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.88.

    89.-(1) If the complaint was made under section 78, the Commissioner shall conduct the investigation in accordance with the prescribed procedures, and section 87 does not apply.
    (2) The Commissioner shall send the police officer and the chief of police interim reports on the investigation at monthly intervals.
    (3) The first interim report shall be sent not more than thirty days after the Commissioner makes the complaint.
    (4) If there are no new matters to report, the Commissioner may send the police officer and the chief of police a notice to that effect instead of an interim report.
    (5) The Commissioner may withold an interim report ftom the police officer if, in his or her opinion, it is desirable to do so to avoid prejudicing the investigation, but in that case shall forthwith notify the chief of police of the decision and the reasons for it.
    (6) When the investigation has been completed, the Commissioner shall cause a final report to be prepared and shall send copies of it to the chief of police and the police officer.
    (7) The final report shall contain,
    (a) a summary of the complaint, including a description of the police officer’s alledged misconduct;
    (b) a summary of the investigation, including summaries of the information obtained from the police officer and any witnesses; and
    (c) a description and analysis of any physical evidence obtained. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.89.

    DECISION BY CHIEF OF POLICE
    90.-(1)The chief of police shall review the final report of the investigation of a complaint and may order further investigation if he or she considers it advisable.
    (2) A summary of the results of any further investigation shall be sent to the persons who received the final report, and to the Commissioner if he or she conducted the original investigation.
    (3) After reviewing the final report and the results of any further investigation, the chief of police shall,
    (a) decide that no further action is necessary;
    (b) admonish the police officer regarding the matter in accordance with subsection 59(1);
    (c) hold a disciplinary hearing under section 60;
    (d) order that all or part of the complaint be the subject of a hearing by a board of inquiry; or
    (e) cause an information to be laid against the police officer and refer the matter to the Crown Attorney for prosecution.
    (4) If the chief of police decides to hold a disciplinary hearing under section 60 or orders a hearing by a board of inquiry, he or she may at the same time cause an information to be laid against the police officer.
    (5) The chief of police shall give written notice of the decision to the Commissioner, the complaintant and the police officer, with reasons in the case the decision that no further action is necessary or a decision to admonish the police officer.
    (6) If the chief of police orders a hearing by board of inquiry, he or she shall also notify the chair appointed under subsection 103(9).
    (7)The chief of police shall give written notice of the decision within six months of receiving the final report, unless the Commissioner grants an extension.
    (8) If the chief of police does not give notice of the decision within the six-month period and is not granted an extension, he or she may be deemed to have decided that no further action is necessary. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.90.

    REVIEW BY COMMISSIONER
    91.-(1) The Commissioner shall review the decision of the chief of police,
    (a) at the complaintant’s or police officer’s request, in the case of a decision under section 90 to admonish the police officer;
    (b) at the complaintant’s request, in the case of a decision under section 90 that no further action is necessary;
    (c) at the complaintant’s request, in the case of a decision under section 85 that the complaint or part of it not be further dealt with unfer this Part.
    (2) The Commissioner may, if in his or her opinion it is in the public interest to do so, review the decision of the chief of police,
    (a) in the case of a decision under section 90 to admonish the police officer;
    (b) in the cade of a decision under section 90 that no further action is necessary;
    (c) in the case of a decision under section 85 that the complaint or part of it not be further dealt with under this Part.
    (3) The Commissioner shall, at the complaintant’s request, review the decision made in a disciplinary hearing under section 60 arising out of a complaint.
    (4) The complaintant or police officer may request a review by the Commissioner only within thirty days of receiving notice of the decision, unless the Commissioner grants an extension.
    (5) In the case of a complaint made under section 78, the Commissioner may review,
    (a) a decision by the chief of police to admonish the police officer;
    (b) a decision by the chief of police that no further action is necessary;
    (c) the decision made in a disciplinary hearing under section 60 arising out of a complaint.
    (6) After conducting a review, the Commissioner may decide to take no further action, or may order a hearing by a board of inquiry if he or she believes ir to be necessary in the public interest.
    (7) The Commissioner shall forthwith give written notice of his or her decision, with reasons in the case of a decision to take no further action, to the chief of police, the complaintant and the police officer.
    (8) If the Commissioner orfers a hearing by a board of inquiry, he or she shall also notify the chair appointed under subsection 103(9). R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.91.

    HEARING BY BOARD OF INQUIRY
    92.-(1) If a penalty is imposed on a police officer after a disciplinary hearing under section 60 that was conducted as a result of a complaint, he or she may appeal to a board of inquiry by serving a notice of appeal on the Commissioner, the chair of the panel and the chief of police within fifteen days of receiving the notice of decision.
    (2) The Commissioner shall forthwith notify the complaintant of the appeal.
    (3) A member of the panel who was appointed on recommendation made under subsection 103(2) may grant an extension of the time provided for serving a notice of appeal, before or after the expiry of the time, and may give directions in connection with the extension.
    (4) The hearing of the police officer’s appeal and any hearing orfered by the Commissioner under section 91 shall be combined. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.92.

    93.-(1) A board of inquiry shall be constituted,
    (a) when the chief of police orders under section 90 that a matter be heard by a board of inquiry;
    (b) when the Commissioner orders a hearing under section 91; and
    (c) when a police officer appeals under section 92.
    (2) The chair of the panel shall assign the following members of the panel to the board of inquiry, choosing members from the area where the complaint arose if possible:
    1. A presiding officer, a member who was appointed on a recommendation made under subsection 103(2).
    2. A member who was appointed on a recommendation made under subsection 103(3).
    3. A member who was appointed on a recommendation made under subsection 103(4).
    (3) In the case of a complaint against a chief of police, the board of inquiry shall include, instead of a member of the panel who was appointed on a recommendation mafe under subsection 103(3), a person, other than a police officer or a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, appointed to the board of inquiry by the chair of the panel on the recommendation of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.93.

    94.-(1) The hearing before the board of inquiry shall be a new hearing, unless it follows a disciplinary hearing under section 60; in that case it shall be on record, but the board may receive new or additional evidence as it considers just.
    (2) If a board is constituted following a disciplinary hearing, the chief of police shall cause a record of the hearing to be prepared, at the Commissioner’s expense if the Commissioner ordered the hearing before the board.
    (3) The record shall include a transcript and shall be accompanied by the documents, physical evidence and exhibits consifered at the disciplinary hearing. R.S.O. 1990,c.P15,s.94.

    95.-(1) the parties to the hearing are,
    (a) the complaintant;
    (b) the police officer
    (c) the Commissioner; and
    (d) the chief of police, in the case of an appeal by the police officer.
    (2) The board of inquiry may add parties at any stage of the hearing on the conditions it considers proper.
    (3) In the case of a hearing ordered by the chief of police or by the Commissioner, the Commissioner has carriage of the matter and, in case of an appeal by the police officer, the police officer has carriage.
    (4)In the case of a hearing ordered by the chief of police or by the Commissioner, the chief of police or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall provide the parties with a concise statement of the allegations of misconduct to be heard. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.95.

    96.-(1) The board of inquiry shall appoint a time for the hearing and notify the parties.
    (2) Before the hearing, the police officer and the complaintant shall be given opportunity to examine any phyisical or documentary evidence that will be produced or any report whose contents will be given in evidence at the hearing.
    (3) The oral evidence given at the hearing shall be recorded and copies of the transcripts shall be provided on the same terms as in Ontario Court (General Division).
    (4) Section 136 of the Court of Justice Act (photography at court hearing) applies with necessary modifications to the hearing.
    (5) Despite section 12 of the Statuatory Powers and Procedure Act, the police officer shall not be required to give evidence at the hearing.
    (6) No statement made by the police officer or complaintant in the course of an attempt to resolve the complaint informally shall be admitted in evidence at the hearing, except with the consent of the person who made the statement.
    (7) The board of inquiry shall not communicate directly or indirectly in relation to the subject-matter of the hearing with any person or party or party’s counsel or representative, unless all parties receive notice and have an opportunity to participate.
    (8) However, the board may seek legal advise from an adviser independant of the parties, and in that case the nature of the advice shall be communicated to the parties so that they may make submissions as to the law.
    (9) If it appears to be in the interests of justice, the board may direct that the board, the parties and their counsel or representatives shall have a view of any place or thing, and may adjourn the hearing for that purpose.
    (10) Within a reasonable time after the matter has finally been determined, documents and things put into evidence at the hearing shall, on request, be released to the person who produced them.
    (11) If the police officer is charged with an offence under a law of Canada or of a province or territory in connection with misconduct or possible misconduct to which the complaint relates, the hearing shall continue unless the Crown Attorney advises the presiding officer that it should be stayed until the conclusion of the court proceedings.
    (12) No member of the board shall participate in a decision unless he or she was present throughout the hearing and heard the parties’ evidence and arguement; except with the parties’ consent, no decision shall be given unless all the members so present participate in it.
    (13) The decision of the majority of the members of the board is the board’s decision. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.96.

    97.-(1) If misconduct is proved at the hearing on clear and convincing eveidence, the chief of police may make submissions as to penalty and the board of inquiey may,
    (a) dismiss the police officer from the police force;
    (b) direct that the police officer be dismissed in seven days unless he or she resigns before that time;
    (c) demote the police officer, specifying the manner and period of the demotion;
    (d) suspend the police officer without pay for a period not exceeding thirty days or 240 hours , as the case may be;
    (e) direct that the police officer forfeit not more than five days’ or forty houts’ pay, as the case may be; or
    (f) direct that the police officer forfeit more than twenty days or 160 hours off, as the case may be.
    (2) Penalties imposed under clauses (1)(d)(e) and (f) shall be calculated in terms of days if the police officer normally works eight hours a day or less and in terms of hours if he or she normally works more than right hours a day.
    (3) Instead of or in addition to a penalty described in subsection(1) the board may reprimind the police officer.
    (4) The board shall promptly give written notice of the decision, with reasons, to the parties and the Attorney General. R.S.O. 1990,c.P.15,s.97.

    98.-(1) A party to the hearing before a board of inquiry may appeal to the Divisional Court within thirty days of receiving notice of the boards decision.
    (2) An appeal may be made on a question that is not a question of fact alone, or from a penalty, or both.
    (3) The Attorney General is entitled to be heard, by counsel or otherwise, on arguement of appeal. R.S.O.1990,c.P15,s.98.

  12. RealityChecker says:

    I’M BUG EYED!!!

    There is still sections 99 to 112 in PART VI PUBLIC COMPLAINTS of the Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990.

    Of interest related to McKinnon’s thingy….

    112.-(2) Despite the repeal of the former Act, complaints made under the former Act before the 31st day of December, 1990 shall be dealt with in accordance with the former Act, except that hearings before boards of inquiry that are constituted after the 31st day of December, 1990 shall be conducted in accordance with this Part. R.S.O.1990,c.P.15,s.122(2)
    (3) Members of boards of inquiry constitured under the former Act before the 31st day of December, 1990 are continued in office for the purpose of completing the work of the boards to which they were assigned. 1991,c.12,s.1(2).

  13. RealityChecker says:

    Here’s a few questions to ponder….

    1. Was Silmser well represented as the complaintant in any disciplinary or board of inquiry hearings against Perry Dunlop?

    2. Did Dave Silmser get a copy of the final report on the Sebalj complaint then a copy of the chief of police’s decision following?

    3.. Where is the public complaint Silmser signed against Perry Dunlop and what exactly were his allegations?

    3. Where was Perry’s police association or union in this mess and why didn’t they catch on to what McKinnon was doing? (Maybe they were busy leaking the confidential statement to the media and covering their butts? I guess that’s a possibility)

    The SHAME OF IT!!!

  14. prima facie says:

    yes…excellent, to say the least!!

  15. RealityChecker says:

    IS John Callaghan the SAME John Callaghan who represented the Cornwall Police Services Board at Perry Dunlop’s Board of Inquiry hearings???

    NAH! Can’t be one in the same…

    He’s NOW representing the Cornwall Police Services at the Cornwall Public Inquiry and leading the CPS cops on that Silmser filed a formal public complaint against Perry Dunlop?? GET THIS LIAR OUT OF THERE!!!

    How is it possible that he go at Dunlop at an – in my opinion – unjustified and fixed board of inquiry then go on to represent the Cornwall Police Service at the Cornwall Public Inquiry and continue to make Perry Dulop out to be a villan by asking his cops misleading questions about Dunlop and a supposed public complaint that no one can find the paperwork on!!!

  16. RealityChecker says:

    Exerts from Perry Dunlops Will State:

    (BTW I understand there are ONLY 50 pages in Dunlop’s ODE before the Inquiry – his Will State is 110 pages – looks like someone is planning to do some cropping!)

    46. May 9, 1994 – I was served formal papers of civil suit. The first victim D.S. had filed a suit against my Force, Children’s Aid Society, as well as named individuals including myself.

    47. May 14, 1994 – 11 days since Sgt Lortie had told me via senior administration no charges were coming, I was served notice of a Public Board of Inquiry by Staff Sergeant Derochie including the Police Services Act charges.

    1. Discreditable Conduct: “did act in a disorderly manner, or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Police Force, in that …you did provide a copy of a statement to…a representative of the Children’s Aid Society.”

    2. Breach of Confidence: “you did divulge a matter which it was your duty to keep secret”

    3. Breach of Confidence: “without proper authority, show to Mr. Richard Abell, a representative of the Children’s Aid Society, being a person who is not a member of the Cornwall Police Service, a statement obtained from (“D.S.”)”

    50. A Board of Inquiry was convened in Ottawa in September of 1994. At this Inquiry, the Cornwall Police Services Board was represented by a lawyer they had retained to act on their behalf and ask for standing in the Inquiry. The lawyer John Callaghan, wanted to assist the police Complaints Commission lawyer in a multiple prosecution role. Chief of Police Johnston had a great concern that I had gone to the Children’s Aid Society and by-passed the chain of command. The fact is, that I did attempt to seek guidance and assistance from my superiors about my concerns.

    It is my understanding (from the Law firm of Nelligan Power) as a police officer that the Chief, if he felt that I violated a law then he should have charged me with separate charges under the Police Services Act or the Criminal Code.

    51. All Police Act charges against me were dismissed at the Board of Inquiry. The hearing was in Ottawa, in September of 1994. The decision from this Board of Inquiry was handed down in my favour on the 31st January 1995. The case was carried further. The Ontario Court, General Division heard the appeal on the 23 of November 1995. The appeal was dismissed. I was completely exonerated. I have attached the Board of Inquiry, the Ontario Court, General Division decisions as well as the cited case from the Ontario Reports.

    READ PAGE 2 OF DUNLOP’S WILL STATE RELATED TO THE BOARD OF INQUIRY….
    http://www.theinquiry.ca/WillState_Part2.hide.php

  17. Sylvia says:

    Post #16. That’s the man. The same John Callaghan who was retained by CPS to lynch Perry in 1994 is back with a vengeanance.

  18. RealityChecker says:

    He’s a damned LIAR…

    …and I DON’T LIKE LIARS!!!

    Show me David Silmser’s formal public complaint on Perry Dunlop. Show me the complaint form. I want to see Complaint Form 1 and I want to see Complaint Form 4 – the final report of a public complaint NAMING AND ACCUSING Perry Dunlop by David Silmser- NOT File C.C.94-01 and the Heidi Sebalj complaint!!!

    …and just WHO is OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE???

  19. Sylvia says:

    FYI. re evidence form the Board of Inquiry.

    The coverpage on one volume of documents reads:

    Police Service Act, 1990

    Addendum to:
    Part II – Evidence

    Complainant: D.S.

    Involved Officer: Constable Perry Dunlop #76
    Cornwall Police Service

    OPCC File #: 30019/94

    Cornwall P.S. # C.C. 94-01

    The cover page for Part II – Evidence reads the same, with the exception that David Silmser’s name appears in full, i.e.,

    Complainant: David J. Silmser

    Note of course the file # and the complainant.

    I will scan and post when I am scanning other documents

  20. RealityChecker says:

    We now know … the 3 charges brought against Perry Dunlop in the September 1994 board of inquiry were from the 1980’s Police Act.

    I am certain any paperwork or documentation or whatever you have related to that board of inquiry in 1994 is going to reference the Police Services Act,1990. You’d have to really dig to see if the Police Act,1980 is referenced anywhere in all the paperwork from the board of inquiry and I don’t think that you will find that it is. You will probably find the Schedule Code of Offences referenced – but who would have thought that Schedule Code of Offences was from OUTDATED legislation??? No one questioned where those 3 charges came from – obviously anyone who was working on Perry’s behalf at that time wasn’t doing their homework or just didn’t know the current Police Services Act of the time.

    It was dirty – it was low – it was corrupt the way they went about nailing Perry. I don’t think they expected anyone to come along and question what they were doing because they certainly tried to cover their tracks – not very well in my opinion!!! This was a PLANNED lynching – a SET UP – no one will ever convince me otherwise!!!

    Sure glad the Dunlops finally have a “DAMNED GOOD LAWYER” (lets see what this guy is made of)

    Hope Dave Silmser has one too!!!

  21. RealityChecker says:

    Do you see ANYWHERE in the Police Services Act R.S.O.1990 where DISCREDIBLE CONDUCT OR BREACH OF CONFIDENCE is part and parcel to MISCONDUCT??? I DON’T!!!

    Even 56(a)- commits an offence in a prescribed code of conduct – There was never any disciplinary hearing to rule in or out that an offence was committed by Perry Dunlop!!! They took it right to a board of inquiry on OUTDATED LEGISLATION and based on a PUBLIC COMPLAINT against another officer!!! Very sly!!!

    56. A police officer is guilty of misconduct if he or she,
    (a)commits an offence described in a prescribed code of conduct;
    (b) contravenes section 46 (political activities);
    (c) engages in an activity that contravenes subsection 49(1) (secondary activities) without the permission of his or her chief of police, being aware that the activity may contravene that subsection;
    (d) contravenes subsection 55(5)(resignation during emergency);
    (e) contravenes section 57 (including midconduct, witholding services);
    (f) contravenes subsection 96(4)(photography at a hearing);
    (g) contravenes subsection 100(6)(Obstructing Police Complaints Commissioner);
    (h) contravenes subsection 108(2) (confidentiality);
    (i) contravenes section 117 (trade union membership);
    (j) deals with personal property, other than money or firearm, in a manner that is not consistent with section 132;
    (k) deals with money in a manner that is not consistent with section 133;
    (l) deals with a firearm in a manner that is not consistent with section 134
    (m) contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 15 (equipment), 16(use of force), 17(standards of dress, police uniforms) 20 (police pursuits) or 21 (records) of subsection 135(1).R.S.O.,c.P.15,s.56

  22. RealityChecker says:

    I really have an issue with this letter from McKinnon to Wells…..

    http://theinquiry.ca/McKinnon%20to%20Brendan%20Wells.pdf

    Anyone figure out what Wilson had to do with this yet???

    And about “arranging the hearing officer” – was that John Callaghan by any chance??? According to Perry’s Will State “the Cornwall Police Services Board was represented by a lawyer they had retained to act on their behalf and ask for standing in the Inquiry” ASKED FOR STANDING – wonder who arranged that??? Need I say more???

  23. RealityChecker says:

    And don’t forget too – in Courville’s press release of January 11/94 where he obviously has knowledge of the attached appendix in Complaint Form 1 of January 21/94 he eggs David Silmser on to launch a formal public complaint against Perry Dunlop. Yeah – Silmser does indeed sign a formal public complaint – on January 21, 1994 – but he does it against Heidi Sebalj NOT Perry Dunlop!!!

    Guess that must have rattled their chains!!!

    From Sylvia’s previous postings….

    11 January 1994 press release ( I will scan and post this later. Those familiar with the facts will see the spin.)

    The press release of 11 January 1994 had input in its compilation from Courville, S/Sgt Luc Brunet and acting chief Johnston. The release announced that, at the request of the Board and Johnston, the Ottawa police had started an external review of the CPS investigation into the Dave Silmser sex abuse allegations. It also reads in part:

    The Board also invites the complainant [David Silmser] to avail himself of the police complaint procedures available to any citizen under the Police Services Act of Ontario.”

    Jones asked if this was not “a very clear invitation for the complainant to essentially make a formal complaint about Perry Dunlop?”

    Tap dance.

    First Courville said: “Not necessarily Perry Dunlop…” Minutes later, again: “Not necessarily…”

    He didn’t say “No.” He didn’t say “absolutely not.” He said “Not necessarily.”

    In between the ‘not necessarilies’ Courville acknowledged that “Perry Dunlop certainly was discussed in the preparation of this press release” and that “Perry Dunlop was a concern or an issue” for those involved in preparing the press release.

    For all the tap dancing the bottom line is that the Board put out a public invitation which in essence invited David Silmser to file a complaint against Perry!

    A PUBLIC invitation!

    What message did the Board intend to convey to the general public with this manoeuvre if not that Perry did wrong, and that if “D.S.” (the complainant) would simply file a complaint Perry would be dealt with accordingly?

    That was 11 January 1994.

    At that time word of the $32,000 had leaked into the public domain. The diocese had yet to confirm the pay-off let alone address the imminent public knowledge that Dave had been illegally gagged by the pay-off. And Perry Dunlop had not yet been charged under the Police Services Act(see Anatomy of a Cover-Up for time-lines)

  24. Sylvia says:

    Not sure what the Ron Wilson interview was about. It’s in the back of mind it may relate to the untimely death of Ken Seguin. Wilson is a former police officer, both with CPS and I do beleive the OPP.

    Wilson has been identified by several persons as one of those who met at various locales with different members of “the clan.”

    Another note of interest here re McKinnon here. Doug Seguin filed a Citizen’s complaint against Perry 02 December 1994 claiming Perry had made statments to the media “that have unjustly discredited the reputation of my brother Ken Seguin and have deeply offended the Seguin family. When Perry intitiated legal action in 1996 against, among other, Doug Seguin, were did Seguin go for a lawyer? All the way to Ottawa. Beament Green Dust. McKinnon’s firm. See blog: http://www.theinquiry.ca/wordpress/?p=710

  25. RealityChecker says:

    Alan Rock was buddies with McKinnon on the Upper Canada Law Society’e Discipline panel.

    Anything else new???

    Sorry…I’m just disgusted by all of this!!!

  26. Sylvia says:

    Rock appointed McKinnon to the bench 1996. Perhaps that’s why Doug Seguin got someone else in the firm to represent him in the Perry Dunlop lawsuit? 🙂

  27. RealityChecker says:

    FOUND SOMETHING…..

    http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/tables/regulationsannotations/elaws_t_re_an_h900927.htm

    ….but do you think I can find the ammended Regulation 551/92?

    No Luck.

    This is the Code of Conduct for all police officers and would have been in effect in 1994. It’s what 56(a) of the Police Services Act R.S.O.1990 refers to.

  28. RealityChecker says:

    Did I hear/read right???

    First, it was the Public Complaints Commission (no such thing – it’s Police Complaints Commission)

    and

    Second, it was a CHIEF’S COMPLAINT against Dunlop.

    Uh – that’s NOT what the board of inquiry documents say!!!
    They clearly show David Silmser as the complaintant – not the chief of police!!!

  29. Sylvia says:

    I’m just reading and reading that part of the transcript. I think there’s a little confusion because there’s reference to both the 1985 charges against Perry and those of 1994.

    Derochie testified he is unsure whetehr permission is sought to add a new officer onto a public complaint. That was clearly testimony rleated to the 1994 Citizens Complaint against Cst. Sebalj

    Then, just before Derochie mentions it being a Chief’s complaint the focus of testimony has shifted to Trottier and the 1985 complaint against Perry. The question put to Derochie here relates to Derochie’s perception of the severity of the charges, Perry v. Trottier. It is here that Derochie says he considers the Trottier case to be more serious because it involved a public complaint whereas Perry’s was a chief’s complaint.

    No?

  30. RealityChecker says:

    Page 51 Line 18 Paul starts asking Deroche specific questions about the Silmser Public Complaint.

    First response from Desroche is “I didn’t have anything to do with that.” and then he goes on to say “Constable Sebalj was the original subject officer”.

    Page 52 Line 2 Paul gets really into it and is more direct about seeking permission from the complaintant.
    Desroche responds he “can’t comment on the PCC process – that was the Public Complaints Commission” (he may be confused – there’s no such thing.)

    Subject changes abruptly – you are right – Paul then focuses on the Trottier case and indicates Dunlop’s 1985 matter was a chief’s complaint.

  31. RealityChecker says:

    The more and more I read – listen – or dig – the more and more I am convimced not one Cotnwall police constable, officer, chief or Police services Board member knows anything about the Police Services Act that governs them!

Leave a Reply