|
Officer representation extends beyond mere advocacy; it encompasses a duty of commitment to fair representation treatment, transparent practices, and the preservation of integrity within the ranks. Within Police Associations, we have navigated various challenges and successes in this domain. In the complex landscape of law enforcement, the need for robust representation is ever-present. From addressing grievances and ensuring due process, to advocating for policy reforms and fostering a supportive work environment, the role of legal counsel and Association representation is indispensable. Approval of legal indemnification is a vital part of officer representation as mounting legal fees function to add an additional burden to an already stressful situation. It is complex and can often be influenced (positively or negatively) by past practices within your own organizations, along with variations in Collective Agreement language, and an Association’s process for the approval of financial assistance for legal representation. Police Associations should establish a policy for this financial support as they will be the payee of initial legal bills, and if not successful in legal indemnification, will be responsible for the fees incurred. Just as Police Services Boards need to clarify the interpretation of “on duty”, or the “lawful execution of duty” in policy, Police Associations should also clarify to protect themselves. Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Throughout Province of Ontario, we find two sections within legal indemnification Collective Agreement language that appear to have been replicated. This is not uncommon in the Collective Bargaining processes, where what is viewed as sufficient language, at the time, is borrowed and shared amongst both Policing Employers and Associations. It is also relevant to point out that there is often apathy, or aversion, when it comes to the language around legal indemnification, as it not often applied, nor is it an appealing topic of discussion due to the root cause of the invocation of the Article; charges being laid against one of your members is not something that we enjoy envisioning. In a politically charged ‘policing environment’, it is probable that the Police Board will attempt to deny the legal indemnification submission from the onset and impugn the actions of the officer with the same lens that the media will often apply: Guilty until proven innocent. Ensure the Legal Indemnification language in your Collective Agreement is updated to reflect the definition of "finally acquitted" and "acts done in the attempted performance in good faith of one's duties as a police officer". This is already well established between the Ottawa Police Association and the respective Police Board. After years of discussions and public disagreements, the Police Services Boards attempted to define the threshold of ‘good faith’, and the indemnification of the criminal legal expenses, on the basis of the result of a Police disciplinary hearing; a hearing process that the Police employer had exclusive authority over. The Ottawa Police Association successfully argued the matter in front of Arbitrator Kaplan (November 1st, 2012; Ottawa Police Association v. Ottawa Police Services Board). This case established the definition of ‘good faith’. Good faith’ is established via the criminal charges either being withdrawn, an acquittal, or a stay in the proceedings. Legal indemnification submissions remain contentious, political and litigious. The need to ensure adequate language exists within the Collective Agreement remains a priority. 
0 Comments
The National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (NDTR) is a day the Government of Canada asks Canadians to honour the children who did not return home as well as the Survivors of residential schools, and their families and communities. Public commemoration of the tragic and painful history, as well as the ongoing impacts of residential schools, is a vital component of the reconciliation process, and as such, this day was deemed a statutory holiday on September 30th, 2021. This holiday was proclaimed by the Governor General on June 3rd, 2021, receiving Royal Assent by Chief Justice Richard Wagner. The law is clear that Royal Assent is analogous to a proclamation into law[1] as it is the constitutional conclusion of the legislative process. This statutory holiday was added to the Bills of Exchange Act, along with the statutory holidays listed in Police Collective Agreements. The NDTR was further added under the definition of Holiday pursuant to the Interpretation Act, and the Canada Labour Code. All members of a Police Service are contractually entitled to all statutory holidays as set out in their agreements. This list was not intended to be exclusive of any newly declared holidays by the Government of Canada, and as such, effective September 30th, 2021, all members are entitled to this additional statutory holiday. Absent agreement to recognize this statutory holiday, Employers are in breach of their Collective Agreements, as well as the Ontario Human Rights Code. The majority of Police Employers across the Province recognize this day as a Statutory Holiday and provide the requisite compensation to their members for it. Failing to do so is discriminatory and in violation of the Collective Agreement. There are a number of arbitral decisions that provide clear support for the recognition of this holiday.[2] Any legal holiday authorized by either the federal or provincial government should be added to the Collective Agreement. Ultimately, the parties have listed as paid holidays from federal and provincial statutes, and consistent with the purpose of including these holidays, there is a collective agreement holiday benefit attached to all other days proclaimed as holidays on the completion of either a provincial or federal legislative ratification process. In addition to the holidays set out specifically, and for added clarification, Association's should consider negotiating the following language in their Collective Agreements: "all other days proclaimed as holidays by the Governor-General of Canada or the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Ontario." [1] AUPE and Alberta Health Services (848846), Re 2022 CarswellAlta 685. [2] AUPE and Alberta Health Services (848846), Re 2022 CarswellAlta 685; Windsor (City) and CUPE, Local 543 (40-21), Re 2022 CarswellOnt 1649; LIUNA, Local 1059 and London & District Concrete Formwork Contractors' Assn. (Statutory Holiday), Re 2021 CarswellOnt 13607; UFCW, Local 1006A and National Grocers Co. (GR0148), Re 2021 CarswellOnt 14694; Olympic Motors (WC1) Corp. and IAMAW, Local 1857 (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation), Re 2021 CarswellBC 3513; Sodexo Canada Ltd. and LIUNA, Local 1059, Re 2021 CarswellOnt 20692; Mission Hill Vineyards and SEIU, Local 2 (National Truth and Reconciliation Day), Re 2022 CarswellBC 1081; Terrapure Environmental and USW, Local 2009, Re 2021 CarswellBC 4110; Manalta Coal Co. and Alberta Strip Miners Union, Local 1595, Re 1990 CarswellAlta 993. ick here to edit.
Blurred Lines: Jurisdictional Abuse by Police Executives (Pamela Machado) Throughout the past decade, there has been no shortage of discussions regarding the threat of Police Association representatives being subjected to investigations, by either a local Chief of Police, or one of the provincial oversight bodies. However, there is little to cite from legally when providing advice on the matter. For those that are not familiar, or unaware, of the police disciplinary process, it is important to know that a local Chief of Police is legislatively invested with substantial authority. The ‘hearing process’, that a Police Officer is subjected to, is akin to that of a military tribunal; where the Hearing Officer and Prosecutor are selected, and paid for, by the Chief. In fact, a Chief of Police is legislatively empowered to initiate, investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate a Police Services Act matter. In addition, there is no independent mechanism for which a Police Association, or serving police officer, can have any potential abuse by a Chief of Police addressed. Issues concerning abuse of authority by a Chief of Police can often be predicted, and when there are repeated requests by Police Associations for independent investigations of those Chiefs, one only needs to read local media headlines, to foresee the direction that will result. As the criticisms mount against a Chief, especially publicly, the temptation to abuse their exclusive authorities also increases, blurring the legal lines between the Police Services and the Police Associations. Though there are many anecdotal stories of Chief’s ‘pursuing’ Police Association Presidents, there is little in the way of legal facts. For many decades, Police Associations have legally operated as independent Not-for-Profit Corporations. The legal structure of a Police Association is almost universal; members from the respective police service elect a President and Board of Directors. The majority of the Police Associations, across Canada, conduct their business with part-time elected representatives. Over time, as municipalities expanded, so did local Police Services and Police Associations. Through the collective bargaining process, the larger Police Associations negotiated a ‘Leave of Absence’ (LOA) section into the collective agreement, so that the membership would have full-time union advocacy. This LOA is funded by the dues collected by the Police Association (not paid for by the taxpayer). When the member is placed on the LOA, they become ‘inactive’ at their respective former employer; subsequently, their local Police Association contractually binds them as an employee of the Not-for-Profit Corporation. Though this LOA structure provides a clear legal separation from the Police Service, there are legal abuses by Police Executives that occur. Also, as a result of a lack in economies of scale, such as an insufficient dues base, there remain a significant amount of Police Associations that operate with part-time elected representatives. There are two highly publicized cases that are worth drawing attention to that highlight the jurisdictional legal abuses by Police Executives: J.R. Christie/Bain/Walsh vs. Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) (April 11, 2022); also, Ottawa Police Association (OPA) (Skof, OPA Association Executive) vs Ottawa Police Service (OPS), 2019. (Attached). In both of these matters, the elected Police Association representatives were on LOA’s and serving their members as full-time union representatives for their respective Police Association. All four had been sworn officers (with OPP and OPS, respectively) prior to their Leave of Absence to the Police Association. Also, all four of them were abusively subjected to the police disciplinary process. This was, and remains, legally unprecedented. The impact of this abuse of legal authority by Police Executives on Police Associations cannot be overstated. Every union, legally, needs to operate independently from an employer; there is a fundamental fiduciary duty, the duty of fair representation to a unions’ membership, that cannot be maintained if there is an imbalance in legal authorities. In the policing profession, the legislative framework of the Police Services Act threatens the independence of Police Associations. In the civil matter of Skof vs. Bordeleau (2020 ONCA 729), there was clarity provided regarding the jurisdiction in which a Police Association could seek financial damages from an alleged abuse committed by a Police Executive. In this matter, OPS Chief Bordeleau ‘suspended’ the Ottawa Police Association President. Though Skof was on a LOA, Bordeleau is alleged to have interfered with Skof’s ability to conduct his union activities. The Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that Skof was not bound by the prescribed ‘grievance’ process listed in the OPA/OPS collective agreement. The Court also questioned whether Skof was still defined as a police officer, while serving in his capacity as President, but did not make a determination on that point. Regardless of the Court of Appeal comments and decision, the Ontario Provincial Police continues (abusively) to hold disciplinary hearings against Christie/Walsh/Bain. The accusations leveled against all three stem from their roles as Police Association Executives. The Hearing Officer in this matter has been appointed by the OPP Commissioner; he is a retired police Superintendent who (like all Hearing Officers) is being remunerated by the OPP Commissioner. In a recent motion, the legal argument regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over such conduct was put to the Hearing officer. In a 64-page(309 paragraph) motion, Counsel submitted that it is an abuse of authority for the hearing to proceed, as the OPP Commissioner did not have a legal jurisdiction to investigate or sanction Christie/Walsh/Bain for their actions/conduct as Police Association Executives, employed by an independent not-for-profit corporation. As such, the Notice of Hearing was improperly laid, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings therein. The abuse of process motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. There remains a significant legal issue that must be re-examined here, and it impacts all Police Association Executives. As it stands today, any legal system that is so overtly out of balance will only encourage corrupt, abusive, behaviour of those in positions of authority. This decision must be appealed, to have an independent assessment of such a vital issue conducted. In our view, this may only occur at the level of Judicial Review.
Vaccination Policies for Covid-19 Within the Police Sector (and Beyond) Pamela Machado and Sue Board The following is an examination of the applicable statutes related to this issue; however, it is noteworthy that neither the Provincial nor Federal government have advised of their desire to pass new legislation that would require workplaces to make vaccination mandatory for their employees. Premier Ford has stated that he will not be tabling legislation that allows workplaces to implement a policy for the mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 of employees, as he believes this would infringe upon every Ontarian’s Constitutional Right not to receive the vaccine.[1] This does not, however, mean that Employers will not undertake this on their own; as seen by the direction of the Toronto Police Service, for example. Does an Employer have the legal right to make inquiries regarding the vaccination status of its employees? At present, it is up to each individual workplace to create a policy regarding COVID-19 that does not infringe upon their employees’ constitutional rights and rights to privacy. To date, our courts and other adjudicators have not ruled on whether non-unionized employers can require employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine. However, the issue of mandatory vaccination in the workplace is not new in unionized healthcare settings. Prior caselaw relating to mandatory influenza vaccine policies in those settings provide some guidance. In these cases[2], the employer implemented a workplace policy requiring staff to stay home without pay if they were not vaccinated for influenza or refused to take anti-viral medication during an influenza “outbreak” in the workplace. Among other reasons, arbitrators held such polices were reasonable because: “The policy did not force staff to get vaccinated. Staff had a choice to either get the influenza vaccine or undergo anti-viral treatment during an influenza outbreak, or stay home without pay. Some of these policies allowed staff to use banked lieu time or vacation credits to help mitigate the financial impact of staying home. Staff were not fired if they refused the vaccine or treatment;[3] Requesting an employee’s vaccination status can be seen as an invasion of privacy, as this information constitutes personal health information, and is protected under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 [4], (hereinafter referred to as “PIPEDA”). Personal information is considered to be any information recorded or not, regarding any individual; this includes a person’s vaccination status. PIPEDA states that the Personal Health information of an individual, whether that person is living, or deceased includes the following:
Requesting an employee’s vaccination status would fall under the above criteria. When requesting an employee’s vaccination status, the employer must first show that the information being requested is for a bona fide business reason, and that the loss of privacy of their employee is proportionate to any benefit intended to be gained. In the case of the vaccine status of an employee, the employer could argue that they are protecting other employees against COVID-19 by requesting their employee’s vaccination status. This is the argument that is undoubtedly going to be interpreted as valid by the Courts, given the safety sensitive nature of the policing profession, and the close contact of its members with the public. The Employer may rely on evidence of the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing COVID- 19 symptoms, however, as the long-term data regarding the effectiveness of preventing the transmission of COVID -19 is lacking, this argument is problematic. Among the primary factors when implementing a proof of a vaccination policy within a workplace is to look at Canadian privacy laws first to ensure that the policy is framed within the legal guidelines. The Collective Agreement, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and Bill 168 should also be primary considerations in the drafting of any policy. Where an employer can provide proof that the request is intended to maintain a safe and COVID-19 free workplace, they may be permitted to collect their employee’s health information, however, prior to collecting this information there should be a clear policy that sets out:
A written policy protects both the employee and employer if it is determined that a breach has occurred in relation to an employee’s private health information. Employers must ensure that their newly created policy adheres to Canadian privacy laws when considering implementing a proof of vaccination program/policy. In a unionized environment, the collective agreement will become an important tool for both the employer, as well as the Association to use when drafting the policy. The management rights clause should be examined, as well as any specific language or policies regarding the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The policy must also include an exemption clause for employees who either cannot get vaccinated, or choose not to based on health or religious reasons. The employer must also ensure that the policy does not result in differential treatment of unvaccinated employees, as this could be deemed grounds for discrimination. The policy should also include consideration for employees who refuse to divulge their vaccination status, and what type of accommodated work will be provided to those individuals. Ultimately, any policy must be drafted to include protections under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Duty to Accommodate, and the Collective Agreement. Mandatory Vaccination for Schools under the Immunization of School Pupils Act. Schools require that students provide updated vaccinated records for common diseases to attend school, however, there is no legislation that requires a person to first, be vaccinated against COVID-19, nor secondly to divulge their vaccination status. The Immunization of School Pupils Act R.S.O. 1990, C I.1 [6], (herein referred to as the ISPA) was created to help protect children who attend school. Section 2 of the ISPA states that “the purpose of this Act is to increase the protection of the health of children against the diseases that are designated diseases under this Act.”[7] At this time the ISPA has not been amended to included Covid-19, however, it may be amended to include the Covid-19 vaccine once it is approved for all school-aged children. Currently the ISPA requires that the Medical Officer of Health for each district maintain an updated record of immunization for each pupil and that they review the record on a regular basis. The ISPA does allow for exceptions, one of which is religious beliefs. Employers who are developing a COVID-19 workplace policy should examine the ISPA, as well as the PIPEDA to assist in framing how the data is collected, reviewed and stored, in order to protect the individual’s privacy rights. Associations are best suited to collaborate with Employer’s to ensure these policies are created within the legal parameters set out in this paper. Failing to do so may result in defective policies that later, must be grieved, at the risk of endangering Employee rights and privacy considerations. Current Vaccination and Masking Policies There are several policies regarding vaccinations and masks within the health care sectors. Most of these were developed to combat influenza, and are now being looked at as possible standards for which employers can request proof of vaccination in relation to COVID-19. The Ontario government has just released a Vaccination policy directive[8] applicable to hospitals, ambulance services and community and home-care service providers. The government does not intend to make vaccination mandatory, however, within this sector specifically, it has directed that every organization must establish, implement and ensure compliance with a Covid-19 vaccination policy. For those who have declined the vaccine, they will be required to be regularly tested for the virus, and wear protective equipment while at work. Past arbitration cases also dealt with “Vaccinate or Mask” influenza policies implemented in healthcare-related workplaces. In such cases, employers implemented policies requiring staff to either get the influenza vaccine or wear a mask at all times while at work for the entire flu season (roughly six months of the year). In one British Columbia case[9],an arbitrator found such a policy was reasonable given clear evidence that the immunization of healthcare workers helped reduced transmission of influenza to patients. The arbitrator also found that the policy gave employees the choice of either getting vaccinated or wearing a mask, and the policy contained specific accommodations for employees who refused to be vaccinated. In sum, requiring employees who refused vaccination to wear a mask was held not to be an unreasonable requirement. In contrast, Ontario arbitrators have found similar “Vaccinate or Mask” policies were unreasonable “coercive tool[s]” designed to drive up influenza vaccination rates because, among other reasons:
However, it is important to note that the above cases involved unionized workplaces, and one factor arbitrators considered in upholding or striking down mandatory influenza vaccine policies was whether the policies were consistent with the collective bargaining agreement between the employers and their unions. No such agreements exist in the non-unionized context. Further, these cases only dealt with influenza and did not address the seriousness of a global pandemic such as COVID-19. To date, only one arbitral decision has dealt with mandatory COVID-19 testing in a retirement home. The employer’s policy required staff to be tested every two weeks for COVID-19, regardless of symptoms. Employees who refused to be tested would be placed on an unpaid leave. The Association challenged the policy, and the arbitrator upheld the policy, finding that the testing requirement, even though it was intrusive to the individual, was reasonable in light of all of the circumstances. In upholding the policy, the arbitrator noted: “Highly infectious and often deadly for the elderly, especially those who live in contained environments. In my view, when one weighs the intrusiveness of the test: a swab up your nose every fourteen days, against the problem to be addressed – preventing the spread of COVID in the Home, the policy is a reasonable one. While the Home has not had an outbreak I agree entirely with the Employer that, given the seriousness of an outbreak, waiting to act until that happens, is not a reasonable option.”[11] While the above decision does not concern proof of vaccinations policies, it does suggest that Arbitrators and courts will recognize the risks posed by Covid-19 and may therefore, be more likely to uphold workplace policies that place worker’s safety over individual privacy rights. It remains to be seen whether arbitrators and courts will uphold mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policies. Best Practices for Creating and Enforcing a Vaccination Policy Employers must create a policy that is clear and concise to avoid problems when it comes to interpretation. The Employer must determine if a policy is necessary to create a safe work environment, and in compliance with all current legislation regarding the collection and use of an individual’s personal health information. The policies should state clearly how the personal information will be collected and stored, who will have access to that information and how long that information will be retained by the Employer. The policy must follow the guidelines set out in PIPEDA, adhering to all privacy legislation in Canada. The policy should be available in print and electronically. The policy should also include any exemptions, and outline the appropriate accommodation for those exempted employees. Despite the lack of jurisprudence on this issue, employers must recognize that some employees will refuse vaccination on grounds protected under the Code, such as medical or religious grounds, and employers may be required to accommodate such employees to the point of undue hardship. For instance, an employee will likely be entitled to protection under the Code if he or she has a severe allergy to the COVID-19 vaccine, or has a medical condition or takes medication that will negatively react with the COVID-19 vaccine. Likewise, an employee who objects to vaccines for bona fide religious reasons will also likely be entitled to accommodation under the Code.[12] A vaccination policy should contain exceptions for such employees requiring accommodation, and employers should explore ways to accommodate them. Possible forms of accommodation may include allowing unvaccinated employees to continue working remotely from home; requiring employees to complete COVID-19 assessments before entering the workplace; maintaining appropriate physical distancing; and wearing appropriate personal protective equipment such as a mask.[13] Given the uncertainty regarding this matter, employers should implement a vaccination policy that allows them to take a flexible approach to an employee’s non-compliance. Associations should review any suggested policy with the Collective Agreement to prevent any conflicts, ensuring that the privacy of members is protected, and the policy itself is not discriminatory or arbitrary. [1] https://windsorstar.com/news/provincial/ontario-to-require-covid-vaccination-or-regular-tests-in-health-care-education/wcm/ [2] Trillium Ridge Retirement Home v. SEIU., Local 183, [1998] OLAA No. 1046 (Emrich); Carewest v. A.U.P.E., [2001] AGAA No. 76 (Graham); Chinook Health Region v. UNA, Local 120, [2002] AGAA 88 (Joliffe); Interior Health Authority v. BCNU, [2006] BCAAA No. 167 (Burke); North Bay General Hospital v. ONA, [2008] OLAA No. 669 (Chauvin). [3] Can Employers Require Employees Vaccinate Against Covid-19? June 24, 2021, Rich Appiah and Domenica Moran. [4] Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5. [5] Supra. Note 4 section 11. [6] Immunization of School Pupils Act R.S.O. 1990, C I.1. [7] Ibid. section 2. [8] Directive #6 for Public Hospitals within the meaning of the Public Hospitals Act, Service Providers in accordance with the Home Care and Community Services Act, 1994, Local Health Integration Networks within the meaning of the Local Health System Integration Act, 2006, and Ambulance Services within the meaning of the Ambulance Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. A.19. Issued under Section 77.7 of the Health Protection and Promotion Acty (HPPA), R.S.O. 1990, c. H-7. [9] Health Employers Assn. of British Columbia and HAS BC (Influenza Control Program Policy), Re, [2013] BCCAAA No. 138., Supra Note 3 at page 16-3. [10] Caressant Care Nursing & Retirement Homes v Christian Labour Association of Canada, 2020 CanLII 100531 (ON LA). Supra Note 3 at page 16-4. [11] Supra Note 8 page 9. [12] Supra Note 3 at page 16-8. [13] Supra Note 3 at page 16-8. Workplace Harassment vs. Breach of Trust/Disclosure of a Private Communication - Decision of the OCJ3/9/2021
In a world that requires social distancing and self-isolation, how can Police Officers still perform their jobs, while keeping themselves and our communities safe? The Police and other first responders will still serve their communities during this challenging time, but what tools are required, in order to assist them in protecting themselves?
These unique circumstances, require that Employers work with Associations to determine the best course of action in protecting their members, as well as the communities they serve. As safety remains the top priority for all Police Services, many have implemented Pandemic Protocols to help monitor this ever-evolving situation. These include new procedures for dealing with the public, as well as their employees, in an effort to keep everyone safe. Police employers have adjusted the way in which Police Officers and Civilian Members interact with the public in relation to non-emergency situations. A number of police facilities have closed their buildings to the public to help reduce social contact, and where an officer is required to attend a non emergency scene in person, the caller may be asked some non-intrusive screening questions related to the COVID-19 health risks. If an officer attends a scene, they may be wearing gloves or masks upon arrival, which have been provided by their Employer. In order to limit the contact that officers are having with the public, and to mitigate any potential exposure to COVID-19, some Employers have implemented procedures to process some calls for service over the telephone, in lieu of having an officer physically attend. This process will not be effective for all calls, and as such, each call is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Associations across Ontario are working with the Services to ensure the safe working conditions for all members. As a result of this, most non-essential services that the Police provide, such as freedom-of-information requests, have been suspended to help protect the members and reduce contact with the public. This also assists in redirecting manpower where it is needed most. During this unprecedented time, it is imperative that both the Police Associations, as well as the Police Services work collaboratively. Associations have presented a number of recommendations to their Boards which include, mandatory personal protective equipment (PPE) whenever there is an expectation of possible exposure. PPE should not be considered a luxury item, and should be supplied to all Front-Line Police Officers as part of the uniform. Police Officers must interact with the Public, and it is clear that they need to feel safe and protected while doing their jobs. The Association has voiced its concern over parades also; protocols like this, which require an increased number of individuals to be together in a confined space, should be re-evaluated and possibly eliminated until this Pandemic is over. In addition, Police Employers should consider staggering lunch hours, and the possibility of alternating shifts, in order to limit the number of officers overlapping at any one period of time. Police Officers frequently accompany both, fire service and emergency medical services when they attend a call. As such, there is an increased risk to our first responders of exposure to COVID-19. It is during this initial interaction with someone that any first responder could be unknowingly exposed. The Ontario Government recognizes this risk; Deputy Premier and Minister of Health Christine Elliot, and Solicitor General Sylvia Jones, announced on April 5, 2020 that the government of Ontario was making an emergency order permitting all first responders access to private health information regarding the COVID – 19 status of individuals. The Deputy Premier stated that this is just one tool that we can give our first responders who put their lives on the line every day to protect Ontarians. Deputy Premier Elliott stated; “During this pandemic, it is crucial that our first responders have access to this critical information when they are preparing to respond to an emergency in order to protect themselves and the public and help stop the spread of this virus. Once the declaration of emergency is lifted, this data will be made inaccessible.” We will continue to advise Associations on this evolving situation, and commend all first responders, and their families, for their continued sacrifice, and commitment to making our communities safer. #staysafe S. 25 Investigations by OCPC - Allegations of Misconduct by the Chief of Police - Martin vs. OCPC4/7/2020 The following decision is instructive in demonstrating that the Executive is not insulated from abusing authority. Checks and balances are in place, and the Ontario Civilian Police Commission will act when there are grounds to justify the enforcement of accountability among the top ranks. The Superior Court upholds the Commission's authority to invoke its mandate and investigate the Chief of Police of the Durham Regional Police Service for allegations of misconduct.
A fair and detailed decision outlining the importance of maintaining professionalism and communication between an Association and its members. The threshold for the Duty of Fair Representation remains a high one, with the burden of proof resting on the complainant.
This Award addresses Workplace Harassment as an Employer process; it is not the duty of the Association to investigate. The Ottawa Police Association provided "Fair and objective consideration to the Complainant's complaint,, was fully engaged in dealing with his complaints, and then took appropriate actions in dealing with those complaints. I find it did not act in an arbitrary manner". Application dismissed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed
