OCPC powers stripped down after probe
Last fall, I wrote in this space about the Ontario government’s decision to review its three police oversight bodies, including the Ontario Civilian Police Commission. (OCPC) The review of the OCPC is of special interest to Peterborough. As has been well reported, this provincial body has been extraordinarily active in our community in recent years, conducting and announcing hearings into former police services board members Daryl Bennett and Garth Wedlock. It reviewed a complaint last year by two provincially-appointed board members into the behavior of two city-appointed board members. Based in part on the abrupt resignation of two provinciallyappointed board members last March, the Ontario Attorney General directed an OCPC investigation into “ongoing issues” at the board. In December, citing its view that the board was so dysfunctional as to constitute an emergency, the OCPC issued orders to place it under the supervision of a provincial administrator. In many ways, this appointed provincial body has become a substitute governor for locally accountable decision makers.
I have been critical of the OCPC in two previous columns.
Some will remember the petty OCPC charges against Mayor Daryl Bennett in 2012 that struck at the very heart of his freedom of speech and his presumption of innocence. During his hostile hearing he was asked trifling questions apparently intended to belittle and sanction him rather than inform the proceedings. There was a welcome measure of justice involved in the dropping of all but one of the OCPC charges made against the mayor last December. In announcing his victory, Bennett rightly said that “the OCPC shouldn’t be able to push elected officials out of the way when they challenge the status quo ... when they speak up on behalf of their communities.”
Others might remember the treatment of former police services board chairman Garth Wedlock who was suspended from his position by the OCPC without any notice of wrongdoing. He was kept away from his job based on actions by accusers who were unknown to him. He was impugned by an accusation of guilt without the opportunity to publicly defend himself.
My urging last fall was for the province to change OCPC procedures dealing with disputes involving police services board members. I made four suggestions, all based on fair and transparent processes and the idea that the shadow of the OCPC should never have the effect of dissuading board members from asking difficult questions or expressing themselves on police issues.
Two weeks ago, an independent reviewer, the Hon. Justice Michael H. Tulloch, delivered his report to the Ontario Attorney General and it dealt a mighty blow to the OCPC. Justice Tulloch found that the OCPC’s mandate was inefficient and duplicative and that its ability to carry out both investigative and adjudicative functions could lead to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Most importantly, he recommended that the OCPC investigative and inquiry powers used in the hearings into the actions of Bennett and Wedlock be eliminated.
In addition, he recommended the elimination of other OCPC responsibilities, including powers relating to the adequacy of police services; budgetary disputes and the structure of police services; appeals from police employees discharged or retired as a result of becoming disabled; the appointment and termination of First Nations constables; and the power to conduct hearings on bargaining units.
This will no doubt come as a welcome if belated consolation to those Peterborough Police Service Board members caught up on the wrong side of OCPC actions in recent years. It now falls to the Ontario government to put in place modern administrative proceedings founded squarely on the principles of fairness, transparency, accountability and respect.