26 OCTOBER 1998

5:00 P.M.


Chair: Mr. P. Vice

Vice Chair: Councillor H. Kreling

Members: Mr. G. Baskerville, Ms. A. Boudreau, Ms. E. Buckingham,

Councillor J. Legendre


Regional Chair B. Chiarelli



That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board confirm the Minutes of the 28 September 1998 meeting.





- Deputy Chief’s report dated 19 October 1998

That the Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board receive this report for information .




POLICE SERVICES ACT (Period Ending 30 September 1998)

- Chief’s report dated 15 October 1998

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.


3. COMMENDATION LETTERS (Received Since June 1998)

- Chief’s report dated 20 October 1998

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.



- Chief’s report dated 21 October 1998

Member Buckingham wondered why the Board needs to approve this expenditure. She noted the Chief has the authority to approve expenditures up to $75,000 and she viewed this as an operational matter. Deputy Chief Bevan explained it is within the Board’s purview to offer rewards, it is not within the power of the Police Service.

Chair Vice congratulated staff on the initiative and suggested, if that is the policy, that it be reviewed.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board authorize the offer of a $5,000 (five thousand dollars) reward for information leading to the location and arrest of Peter Chenier.



- Chief’s report dated 20 October 1998

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.




(deferred from 28 September 1998 meeting)

- Board Secretary’s report dated 10 September 1998

- Chief’s report dated 11 September 1998

Member Buckingham believed the recommendations of the Adams Report were positive and that the Board’s opinion should be conveyed to the Attorney General with an emphasis on the need for the SIU to get the funding and resources it requires. She felt the Attorney General should be encouraged to implement the recommendations as quickly as possible.

Member Baskerville supported Member Buckingham’s suggestion and thanked the Chief for his comments on the Adams Report recommendations. He expressed his support of the recommendations and of the Chief’s comments with regard to recommendation 12, which suggests the SIU should have the power to register a conduct complaint rather than making it the responsibility of a Chief. He commended the suggestion in recommendation 13 which makes the point that all interviews should be recorded or videotaped. With respect to recommendation 25, which considers using the dispute resolution centre for conciliatory discussions, he felt there is a role for this but he did not believe it should be mandatory. Member Baskerville suggested adding the Chief’s comments to the correspondence endorsing the recommendations.

Member Boudreau also supported the recommendations. She expressed a sense of frustration, noting this is not the first time such a report has come forward. She recalled there have been inquests from which similar recommendations have come forward, but which have died without any regulations coming from the province. She believed problems with SIU investigations have been caused by lengthy delays resulting from a lack of funding. She supported writing to the province recommending that the Adams Report recommendations be given the force of regulation with a significant emphasis on the appropriate funding.

Councillor Legendre wondered if the OCRPS policy would automatically be subject to that act should these recommendations become law and what the Police Services’ practice was with respect to notifying the SIU. Chief Ford confirmed the Police Services’ policy would automatically be subject to legislation. He also indicated the OCRPS has taken the position of notifying the SIU of any incidents where they might need to be involved and that is the responsibility of the senior officer on duty. Councillor Legendre thank staff for the report.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board write to the Attorney General of Ontario to express its support for the recommendations contained in Justice Adams’ Report on Police Cooperation with the Special Investigations Unit, and specifically to express support for proper funding to ensure the SIU can effectively carry out its activities.

CARRIED as amended


Board Executive Director’s report dated 16 October 1998

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board approve holding the regular meeting in December on December 21st at 5:00 p.m.




- verbal update from Chief B. Ford and Inspector L. Beechey

Chief Ford report on the following items:

Deputy Chief Bevan reported on the opening of the new forensic lab at Central Division. He indicated the official opening was well attended and attendees had the opportunity to tour the facility. He expressed pride in the facility and encouraged Board members to visit.

OPP Inspector L. Beechey reported that since the arrival of the seven new officers, the OPP have been able to form a traffic unit out of Kanata and Goulbourn. The unit has been operating for approximately five weeks and in that time, they’ve laid 785 traffic charges, 18 criminal code offences, 8 liquor charges and issued 400 warnings. He indicated the OPP also ran an "Operation Impact". In all, 13,300 vehicles were checked and 212 seatbelt charges laid. Inspector Beechey explained there was a reported robbery of an OC Transpo bus on October 4th and the driver has since been charged with public mischief as there was no robbery. In closing, he reported on a number of armed robberies in Arnprior, Carp and Ottawa. The OPP worked with the OCRPS and using the Regional Police’s surveillance team, those robberies were solved and three people have been charged.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.



1. Consideration of In Camera Item

Councillor Legendre referenced a letter he had sent to Board members earlier in the day in response to an item on the Board’s In Camera agenda. He requested that the matter be considered in public.

Member Baskerville stated the item must be dealt with In Camera because it relates to an employee of the Board and matters of that nature are clearly to be considered in private. He maintained that it would be inappropriate to discuss the matter in public and that to do so could lead to very serious legal implications.

Councillor Legendre responded that his correspondence has already been sent to media outlets, so to say that it must now be dealt with In Camera is ridiculous. He stated it is not a personnel matter, but rather a policy matter, and he refused to deal with it In Camera. Specifically, he believed it was a question of whether it was appropriate for a member of the Board to have the ability to ask a generic question at a conference to which he had been sent by the Board. A second policy issue has to do with whether it is appropriate for the Board, as an oversight body, to receive legal advice from the same person who advises the Chief and the Service, whom the Board is charged with overseeing.

Member Buckingham stated she would have no difficulty dealing generically with the two questions described by Councillor Legendre without dealing with individuals. However, she suspected the Board would find there are other aspects of this incident that it would wish to discuss In Camera.

Member Boudreau agreed there may be some policy issues that flow from the incident in question, however, she believed the initial correspondence represents a letter from an employee of the Board who felt they had been aggrieved by their employer. In her mind there was no doubt this is an employee/employer relationship question and the Police Services Act dictates that such matters be dealt with In Camera.

Member Baskerville added that the fact Councillor Legendre’s letter had been sent to the media could be deemed a violation of Ontario Regulation 421/97, namely, the Code of Conduct for Police Services Boards. This also would be a matter for In Camera discussion by the Board.

In response to a question from Chair Vice, Councillor Legendre confirmed that he wished to move that the matter be dealt with in public, specifically, the two generic policy issues previously described. He maintained that he had fully intended to bring forward the issue pertaining to the role of the legal counsel to the Board for a public discussion at a later date in any case.

Chair Vice echoed Ms. Buckingham’s concerns about the feasibility of separating the policy issues from the personnel issues in this circumstance. He agreed any policy issues should be dealt with in public, but did not believe it would be possible to separate the two aspects. He suggested the matter be initially dealt with In Camera, and that any policy matters that fall out of that discussion be dealt with at a later public meeting.

Moved by J. Legendre

That policy issues related to Item 4 of the Board’s Confidential Agenda be discussed in public.


YEAS: E. Buckingham, J. Legendre

NAYS: G. Baskerville, A. Boudreau, H. Kreling, P. Vice




1. Request for Proposal: Comprehensive Review of Legal Services

Member Buckingham stated it was with interest that she noted the Region had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to do a comprehensive review of legal services and the scope of the review was to include the legal services provided to the Regional Police Service. She wondered to what extent the Police Service had been consulted on the terms of reference of the study. Chief Ford indicated the Police Service was not consulted on the matter.

Member Buckingham suggested it would be appropriate for the Board or the Chief to write to the Region’s CAO thanking him for undertaking this but reminding him that the Board will make its own decision at the end as to what it wishes to do with the findings. She also believed the correspondence should suggest that the Board would be more likely to accept the recommendations if its members were included among the individuals to be interviewed. She noted the terms of reference listed Regional Councillors and a representative of the Police Service as people to be interviewed but made no mention of a Police Services Board member.

Chief Ford explained that as a result of a discussion he had with a member of the CAO’s staff, he understood the study was to look at the legal services the Region provides, such as litigation services. He agreed the Board should be consulted in the study and incidated he would communicate with the CAO’s office.


2. Report on Year 2000 Readiness

Member Buckingham noted the report on year 2000 readiness prepared by Regional staff and wondered when the Police Service staff anticipated being in a position to provide a briefing to the Board on the Service’s year 2000 readiness. She maintained that not only do the systems need to be ready but a plan must be in place as part of an emergency response. She noted that in fact, problems could start arising as early as January 1, 1999. Chief Ford indicated there are two parts to that issue. With regard to staffing, he indicated the Service will be blocking off a period, he believed between December 28th through to March 15th, during which staff will not be able to take holidays. On the second part of the issue, he deferred to Deputy Chief Bevan who is chairing the steering committee.

Deputy Chief Bevan explained staff have formed a steering committee made up of himself, Deputy Chief Mackie, Mr. Kanellakos and Ms. L. Brandon, the Service’s IT manager. Also sitting on the committee are Mr. M. West, a consultant obtained by the Region and Mr. G. Geddes, an employee of the Region who has agreed to sit on the committee to provide advice. He indicated the committee has completed an analysis of the various systems and specific business activities within the operation and has identified, by priority, the things that need attention. The committee has reviewed every aspect of the Service’s business and is well on its way to doing an analysis of the Service’s ability to support those activities. He indicated he was unaware of the January 1, 1999 date stating the committee would discuss it at its next meeting. In response to Member Buckingham’s questions with regard to staff’s ability to provide briefings to the Board, Deputy Chief Bevan indicated he hoped to be in a position to do that at the Board’s December meeting.


3. Traffic Tickets

Referencing the Minutes of the 28 September meeting, Member Buckingham noted the average number of traffic tickets issued per day and wondered of those, how many are handed out by general patrol officers as opposed to those who are part of the traffic unit. Deputy Chief Mackie indicated he did not have that information on hand but would provide it to Member Buckingham.



That the Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board move In Camera to discuss a personnel matter, in accordance with Section 35(4)(b) of the Police Services Act.




The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.










____________________________ _____________________________

W. Fedec P. Vice

Executive Director Chair