• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

The following draft Minutes of the meeting of the Toronto Police Services Board held on March 8, 2005 are subject to adoption at its next regularly scheduled meeting. The Minutes of the meeting held on February 10, 2005 previously circulated in draft form were approved by the Toronto Police Service Board at its meeting held on March 8, 2005. MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING of the Toronto Police Services Board held on MARCH 8, 2004 at 1:30 PM in the Auditorium, 40 College Street, Toronto, Ontario. PRESENT: Ms. Pam McConnell, Councillor & Chair Dr. Alok Mukherjee, Vice Chair Mr. John Filion, Councillor & Member Mr. Hamlin Grange, Member Mr. Case Ootes, Councillor & Member ABSENT: The Honourable Hugh Locke, Q.C., Member ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Michael J. Boyd, Interim Chief of Police Mr. Albert Cohen, City of Toronto - Legal Services Division Ms. Deirdre Williams, Board Administrator THIS IS AN EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD HELD ON MARCH 08, 2005 #P66. MOMENT OF SILENCE The Board observed a moment of silence in memory of the four Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officers of the Mayerthorpe and Whitecourt RCMP Detachments in Alberta who were killed while on duty on Thursday, March 03, 2005. They were: Constable Peter Schiemann Constable Tony Gordon Constable Brock Myrol Constable Leo Johnston THIS IS AN EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD HELD ON MARCH 08, 2005 #P67. INTRODUCTIONS The following members of the Service were introduced to the Board and congratulated on their recent appointments and promotions: Mr. Sang-Rae Kim, Manager, Enterprise Architecture Staff Superintendent Richard Gauthier Superintendent Robert Qualtrough Superintendent Christopher White Staff Inspector Bruce Crawford Inspector Peter Lennox Detective Sergeant Karl Giedroyc Detective Sergeant Keith Smith Staff Sergeant Scott Baptist Staff Sergeant Robert Knapper Sergeant Shane Branton Sergeant Oliver Febbo Sergeant Leah Gilfoy Sergeant Sal Granata Sergeant Jordan Latter Sergeant Joseph Matthews Sergeant Vivian Meik Sergeant David Sammut Sergeant Steven Smith Sergeant Liugi Vendramini Sergeant Blain Young THIS IS AN EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD HELD ON MARCH 08, 2005 #P68. COMMUNITY EDUCATION & ACCESS TO POLICE COMPLAINTS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT The Board was in receipt of correspondence, dated January 11, 2005, from Lancefield Morgan, Special Projects Developer, Scadding Court Community Centre, regarding the Community Education and Access to Police Complaints Demonstration Project. A copy of the correspondence and a list of the proposed recommendations are appended to this Minute for information. The following persons from the Scadding Court Community Centre were in attendance and made a presentation to the Board on the Community Education and Access to Police Complaints Demonstration Project: · Mr. Kevin Lee, Executive Director; · Ms. Leila Sarangi, Police Project Consultant; and · Ms. Savannah Shears, Outreach and Education Worker. The Board commended the representatives of Scadding Court for their work in developing the Access to Police Complaints Demonstration Project and, on the basis of the success of the project, recommended that Scadding Court consider whether the project could be expanded to other geographical areas in Toronto such as through the Wellesley Community Centre in St. Jamestown in No. 51 Division. The Board received the foregoing correspondence and presentation and approved the following Motion: THAT the recommendations proposed by the Scadding Court Community Centre be referred to the Chief of Police for review and that he provide his comments regarding this matter to the Board for consideration at a future meeting. THIS IS AN EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD HELD ON MARCH 08, 2005 #P69. MOBILE CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM The Board was in receipt of correspondence, dated December 13, 2004, from Ms. Nancy Read and Dr. Donald Wasylenki, St. Michael’s Hospital, with regard to the partnership between St. Michael’s Hospital Psychiatric Emergency Service and the Toronto Police Service’s No. 51 and No. 52 Divisions. A copy of the correspondence is appended to this Minute for information. The following persons from the Psychiatric Emergency Service at St. Michael’s Hospital were in attendance and delivered a presentation to the Board on the Mobile Crisis Intervention Team: Dr. Ian Dawe, Medical Director; and Ms. Joanne Walsh, Clinic Leader Manager. Superintendent Randall Munroe and Staff Sergeant Tom Kelly, No. 51 Division, were also in attendance and responded to questions by the Board about the worked performed by the officers assigned to the Mobile Crisis Intervention Team. They also described how the partnership with St. Michael’s Hospital has impacted the manner in which officers in No. 51 Division respond to policing issues involving emotionally disturbed individuals. The Board expressed its appreciation to Dr. Dawe, Ms. Walsh, Supt. Munroe and S/Sgt. Kelly for their involvement in the very successful program and commented on the benefits that could be achieved if similar partnerships could be established with the Toronto Police Service in other hospitals throughout the city. The Board received the correspondence and the presentation and approved the following Motions: 1. THAT Interim Chief Boyd provide a report to the Board on the possibility of developing similar partnerships in other divisions and identify the financial or resource benefits that may result from such new partnerships and any training issues that may be involved; and 2. THAT the Board invite Dr. Stephen Hwang from the Inner City Health Research Unit at St. Michael’s Hospital to present his research on the interaction between the homeless and the Toronto Police Service. THIS IS AN EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD HELD ON MARCH 08, 2005 #P70. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REPORT ON THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS AND PENALTY STANDARDS The Board was in receipt of the following report FEBRUARY 17, 2005 from Julian Fantino, Chief of Police: Subject: PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REPORT ON THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS AND PENALTY STANDARDS Recommendation: It is recommended that: the Board receive this report for information. Background: At its meeting of November 18, 2004, the Board, during a discussion with respect to a Tribunal hearing decision, requested a report on the disciplinary process and penalty standards and an explanation of the following: (Board Minute C198/2004 refers) 1. The differences between the disciplinary tribunal process and the disciplinary process conducted at the unit level; 2. The process through which the Service determines whether a disciplinary matter will be resolved by the unit commander or at the tribunal; and 3. How the Service determines an appropriate penalty and ensures that it is consistent with the seriousness of the facts and is comparable to previous penalties issued by other unit commanders across the Service or the hearing officers at the tribunal. Superintendent Robert Qualtrough and Staff Inspector George Cowley of the Professional Standards-Risk Management Unit will be in attendance at the March meeting to accompany this report with an oral presentation. Police discipline is provided for in the statutory scheme entitled 'Complaints', which is Part V of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 (PSA), and Ontario Regulation 123/98 made under the authority of the PSA. This statutory scheme provides for both civilian (or external) complaints and a chief’s (or internal) complaint. Investigation of complaints is the responsibility of the chief of police of the police service to which the complaint relates. A chief must determine whether the complaint is either about the conduct of a police officer, or the policies and/or services provided by the police service. In addition, a chief is compelled to have every complaint about the conduct of a police officer (other than the conduct of the chief or a deputy chief) to be investigated and the results of that investigation to be reported on in a written report. 1. The differences between the disciplinary tribunal process and the disciplinary process conducted at the unit level. If at the conclusion of an investigation, and upon review of the written report, the chief of police is of the opinion that “the police officer’s conduct may constitute misconduct” then the chief shall hold a hearing into the matter (PSA, s. 64(7) refers). This hearing, often referred to as the Tribunal, must be conducted in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, and requires a burden of proof based on " clear and convincing evidence" to convict the officer. Upon conviction, the hearing officer may impose one of the following range of penalties: (a) dismissal; (b) direct that the officer be dismissed in seven days if she/he does not resign before that time; (c) demote the officer, specifying the manner and period of the demotion; (d) suspend the officer without pay for a period not exceeding 30 days or 240 hours; (e) direct that the officer forfeit not more than 20 days or 160 hours off; (f) a reprimand; (g) specified counselling, treatment or training; (h) participation in a specified program or activity, or (i) any combination of (f), (g) and (h). A finding of guilt results in an entry in the officer's employment file where it will remain for his/her entire career. However, if a chief of police believes that the actions of the officer constituted misconduct, that was "not of a serious nature", the PSA provides for three alternative methods of resolving the complaint at the unit level. Each of these approaches require the agreement of the complainant, the officer and the chief of police. Informal Resolution Before or During Investigation: If, at any time before or during an investigation into a complaint about the conduct of a police officer and the conduct appears to be obviously conduct that is not of a serious nature, the chief of police may resolve the matter informally, if the police officer and the complainant consent to the proposed resolution.

Load more

  239

Copy Link