THESE SEATS ARE ‘TAKEN’
Tarp treatment irks Sens fan
SHAAMINI YOGARETNAM
Members of the Ottawa police services board accepted the temporary promotion of a senior officer without realizing he was under criminal investigation, the Citizen has learned.
The revelation, which comes from email exchanges in early August between board members and obtained by the Citizen, turns on what some board members said they were led to believe by Chief Charles Bordeleau.
The emails contain conversations normally kept hidden from the public under the shield of in-camera police services board meetings, which are held behind closed doors.
Minutes of such meetings are not made public.
The discussion between board members centred on their decision to allow Supt. Chris Rheaume to temporarily assume the role of deputy chief even though he is one of three senior police officials currently under Ontario Provincial Police investigation.
In one email, Coun. Allan Hubley said he was not aware Rheaume could face criminal charges when the board had talks about the promotion.
“The point is that there remains a potential for criminal charges which I for one understood had not existed when we discussed the promotion. Of course everyone is assumed to be innocent … but does that assumption also include the privilege of being promoted is the question I am left with now.
“In the end this comes down to judgment skills on the chief ’s part and that will be for the board to keep in mind going forward.”
Hubley’s email was sent to all members of the board.
Coun. Tim Tierney replied to the recipients, saying “Same.”
Two other members of the board, Sandy Smallwood and Suzanne Valiquet, also expressed concerns about the promotion. Smallwood wrote in an earlier exchange that he shared Hubley’s concerns and Valiquet replied that she “Agreed.”
None of the six sitting board members answered Citizen questions on what they knew and when, but several referred all questions to the board chair, the seventh member of the oversight body.
Police board chair Coun. Eli El-Chantiry said Wednesday the board “does not have the authority to direct day-to-day operational decisions” but “did ask the chief about this decision to promote.”
“With respect to the investigation, the Board was advised it was an investigation into an internal complaint into allegations of a possible criminal nature and/or conduct under the Police Services Act.”
Bordeleau said that he would not answer questions during an ongoing “OPP review.”
The frank emails between the board members appear to have been prompted by a complaint from rank-and-file police union president Matt Skof.
Skof claimed he was asked by Bordeleau to remove the word “criminal” from an invoice submitted to the police force to pay for legal representation of civilian witnesses in the OPP criminal investigation. Those witnesses belong to Skof ’s union.
That raised a red flag for the union head, who then sent a letter to the board asking precisely if the board was under the impression that the investigation was not a criminal probe.
It appears to have prompted four out of the seven board members to realize that the investigation could lead to criminal charges, which they say they were not expressly told before accepting the promotion.
El-Chantiry, following the board’s emailed concerns, attempted to clarify Bordeleau’s language for the group.
“With respect to the concerns you raise … I want to clarify that by using the term ‘investigation’ instead of ‘criminal investigation’ it does not suggest criminal actions took place in addition to other misconduct; rather it is meant to generalize that the investigation will look into the criminal allegations and/ or other misconduct possibilities.”
El-Chantiry then cautioned the group: “Much like the Abdi case, we need to observe the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Once the board is made aware of the outcomes of the investigation, we can act accordingly.”
Despite the misgivings, a letter sent to the rank-and-file union, also obtained by the Citizen, dated the next day and sent “on behalf of the entire board,” absolves Bordeleau from any hint of wrongdoing:
“With respect to the OPP investigation, this was begun at the request of the Chief to ‘investigate an internal complaint into allegations of a possible criminal nature and/or conduct under the Police Services Act.’ This is the exact wording from the request that was put forward to the Board. It is the Board’s view that this investigation therefore is much broader than a criminal investigation as it is also looking at whether contraventions of the PSA occurred. In your letter, you label the Chief ’s request to remove the word “criminal” from future invoices as being deceitful, harassing, and intimidating, and abhorrent behaviour. It is the Board’s view that by removing the word ‘criminal’ it better reflects the broader scope of the investigation being conducted by the OPP.”
El-Chantiry argued the omission of the word “criminal,” somehow, was more accurate than specifically naming the investigation. Discussions about the omission were semantics, he said.
“While the semantics can continue to be debated, the Board is far more concerned with the outcome of the investigation and whether any misconduct occurred — criminal or otherwise,” the letter continued. “We await the results and we expect the outcome, whatever it may be, to be clearly communicated to the public and members.”
Skof called the revelations in the emails obtained by the Citizen “very disturbing.”
The union head said Wednesday that the police board “is rationalizing the chief’s potentially misleading comments and failing to exercise their authority and due diligence in regards to the chief’s conduct.”
The Citizen first reported the criminal allegations of evidence manipulation and fraud against three senior police employees in May of this year.
The allegations centre on legal disclosure lawyers received while defending then-acting Staff Sgt. Marty Rukavina, who — along with constables Serge Clement and Carl Grimard — had been charged by the Special Investigations Unit after a tactical training explosion in Kanata injured two officers and three paramedics in 2014.
The charges against Rukavina and the other officers were ultimately stayed, but disclosure provided to their lawyers is alleged to have shown that evidence in the case was changed by the force’s legal counsel and also that some senior officers gave false statements during the SIU’s investigation.
The combined effect would have sheltered the service from civil and labour liability but would have also suggested its officers were not following standard practices and therefore possibly were responsible for the explosion.
The Citizen, at the same time, also reported that the criminal probe was being conducted by OPP detectives. Despite the reporting, board members, as late as August, were still left with the impression that the OPP investigation was purely a disciplinary probe.
In July, one of the officers under investigation, Rheaume, was given a temporary promotion to the rank of deputy chief in charge of all investigations at the police service.
Bordeleau stood by his decision to promote Rheaume, calling it a three-week assignment. Rheaume acted as a deputy chief from July 22 to Aug. 13. He has since returned to his job as superintendent.
Rheaume’s lawyer Lawrence Greenspon previously told the Citizen that his client “cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.”
“We are confident that there is nothing in the investigation or its results that would interfere in his ability to effectively carry out his duties,” Greenspon said.
The OPP probe continues.