Pereira police hearing rejects claim of bias
Convictions against Hamilton officer will stand
There will be no new hearing for Sgt. Helena Pereira to address the allegation of perception of bias in her Police Services Act case.
And adjudicator Morris Elbers will not recuse himself from the case, he ruled during a short hearing Tuesday morning at Hamilton police headquarters.
Pereira had argued her chance to a fair hearing was compromised by the fact Elbers shared lunches with the case’s prosecutor and investigator in March.
But, ruling on his own role in the hearing, Elbers rejected the veteran Hamilton police officer’s motion claiming “reasonable apprehension of bias.”
That allegation, he said, is “purely based on the supposition of conjecture.”
The former OPP superintendent also called Pereira’s effort a “tactic” to avoid the hearing’s outcome.
Pereira was convicted of three out of six Police Services Act charges in July for pushing a drunk pris- oner into a cell, taking charge when she shouldn’t have and not immediately disclosing a conflict of interest when her cousin was arrested and brought to the cell area where she worked. The incidents took place in 2013. She was supposed to be sentenced in September, but her motion put that on hold.
In January, lawyer Joshua Phillips argued, on Pereira’s behalf, that sharing pizza with prosecutor Gary Melanson and a case investigator, who paid the bill, clouded the hearing with a perception of bias.
Phillips acknowledged Elbers’ odd position of analyzing his own role in the hearing, but also asked that he put himself in the “position of somebody looking at it from the outside.”
On Tuesday, Elbers said he wouldn’t do anything to put his career or those of others involved “in jeopardy” by acting inappropriately.
He noted members of Police Services Act proceedings move in tight circles and are often involved in more than one matter at a time.
“It is normal to exchange pleasantries.”
Under the act, as adjudicator, he’s able to rule on his own role.
Elbers also cited the lag of several months — March to September — between when police association representative Brad Boyce found out about the shared pizza and the filing of Pereira’s motion.
He characterized the delay as “unbelievable” and “embarrassing” for Boyce — who isn’t a lawyer, but has about 100 hearings under his belt — and the association.
After Tuesday’s hearing, Boyce said that, in March, Pereira had spoken to him about the lunch, but he responded by saying, “welcome to our world i n police services where the process is biased.”
Then, i n late August, Pereira raised the issue again.
Boyce said he told her, “‘Really? OK, let me do some further research.”’ After that, he decided the issue needed to be addressed.
“In reality, it was my view that the dining together by the parties was just another bias on the side of the prosecution.”
The parties have agreed to discuss the matter further during a conference call Feb. 24.
“My guess is that we would be seeking a stay or judicial review, but I would have to get input from counsel,” Boyce said.
Elbers declined to comment after Tuesday’s hearing.
My guess is that we would be seeking a stay or judicial review.
BRAD BOYCE