ATTACHMENT 1                                                                    

 

 

 

 


PUBLIC COMPLAINTS

PART V- POLICE SERVICES ACT

DETAILS OF POLICY AND/OR SERVICE COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS

 

 

 

Complaint #:                          10-0438

Date of Incident:                   06 December 2009

Date of Complaint:               25 August 2010

Date Completed:                   07 December 2010

 

Summary of Complaint:

 

The complainant alleged that after filing a partner assault complaint in December 2009 there was no follow-up until 8 July 2010.  The OIPRD classified it as a service complaint.

 

Summary of Findings and Actions Taken:

 

The service issues raised in the complaint submitted by the complainant are being addressed by Ottawa Police Service through the CIS Enhancement Project and the sharing of the recommendations as outlined in the decision letter with the managers of the Partner Assault Unit.

 

______________________________________________

 

Complaint #:                          10-0469

Date of Incident:                   23 August 2010

Date of Complaint:               10 September 2010

Date Completed:                   08 November 2010

 

Summary of Complaint:

 

The complainant alleged that the policy of charging $47.00 for a motor vehicle accident report is exorbitant. 

 

Summary of Findings and Actions Taken:

 

The investigation determined that the fees set out by the Ottawa Police Service for providing various services are in line with other municipal police services in the province of Ontario.  The fees are set out in the yearly budget and are approved by the Ottawa Police Services Board. 

 

_______________________________________________

Complaint #:                          10-0495

Date of Incident:                   10 September 2010

Date of Complaint:               24 September 2010

Date Completed:                   13 October 2010

 

Summary of Complaint:

 

The complainant alleged that when the alarm at his residence was activated it took over an hour for a response to the alarm.

 

Summary of Findings and Actions Taken:

 

On 13 October 2010, the complainant chose to withdraw his complaint satisfied that the response times to his alarm call fell within the timeframe under the Ottawa Police’s Services Alarm Policy “priority two” calls, which have a two hour response window.

 

______________________________________________

 

 

Complaint #:                          10-0520

Date of Incident:                   01 June 2009

Date of Complaint:               04 October 2010

Date Completed:                   05 October 2010

 

Summary of Complaint:

 

The complainant filed a complaint with OIPRD alleging that the Ottawa Police Service refused to re-open an investigation in which he was wrongfully convicted ten years ago.  He also complained about incidents that occurred in June 2009.

 

Summary of Findings and Actions Taken:

 

The OIPRD opted not to proceed with the complaint regarding the incidents that allegedly occurred in June 2009 as it predated 19 October 2009, the date that OIPRD was proclaimed into force.  The OIPRD also determined not to proceed with the portion of the complaint with respect to the August 2010 incident and advised the complainant that refusal of the OPS not to re-open a 1997 investigation did not constitute misconduct.

 

______________________________________________

 


 

Complaint #:                          10-0570

Date of Incident:                   08 August 2009

Date of Complaint:               05 November 2010

Date Completed:                   15 November 2010

 

Summary of Complaint:

 

The complainant alleged that the OPS failed to provide adequate service when his report of a missing laptop/power cord and camera bag containing a camera, video tapes and some rechargeable batteries/charges was not investigated. 

 

Summary of Findings and Actions Taken:

 

On 15 November 2010 a letter from the OIPRD was received advising the complainant has chosen to withdraw his complaint as his report has been reopened and it is currently being investigated and therefore no need to proceed with this complaint.