Source:Brampton Guardian
By PAM DOUGLAS
|
Feb 26, 2010 - 3:59 PM
A fund has been set up to help pay the legal fees of the Brampton families trying to free their dogs from the city pound.
Brittany and Rambo have been held by the City of Brampton since being seized from their homes Jan. 13. Brittany is owned by Rui Branco’s family and he hired a lawyer last month who will take the case to court. Branco is trying to prove to the city that the dogs are boxer/American bulldog mixes. The city has labelled them “pitbulls”, which were banned by provincial legislation four years ago.
Donations can be made at www.saveontariodogs.com, or at any branch of the TD Bank, transit number 02622, account number 78766538796.
Meanwhile, supporters who have been trying to draw city politicians into the controversy have now reached out to Mississauga city councillors for help. They say Brampton councillors can learn something about compassion and doing the right thing from their colleagues to the south.
That’s because two years ago, Mississauga animal control officers impounded a dog that had escaped from its home and was reported running loose. His name was Rambo, too, he was labelled a pitbull and his owner was also denied visits to see him.
But Mississauga councillors intervened, saying it was only right to allow his owner to visit him. They unanimously passed a motion directing city staff to allow her to visit.
Now, supporters of Brittany and Rambo are trying to let Brampton councillors know that, despite a city staff warning that they can’t interfere in a legal matter, they can do something— allow the dogs’ families to visit.
“City-owned pounds should be showing people how to treat dogs by example,” Mississauga Councillor Carolyn Parrish said at the time of the Mississauga issue. “It’s not going to be thousands of people. We only have one incarcerated dog right now.”
Visits were prohibited at the Mississauga pound, but councillors changed that policy so exceptions could be made.
Mississauga Councillor George Carlson called allowing the visit “a measure of our humanity”.
critter cartoon
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
OPP officer charged after Moosonee fight
Source:CTV.CA
Updated: Thu Feb. 25 2010 11:40:03 AM
The Canadian Press
MOOSONEE, Ont. — Two more people including a provincial police officer have been charged with assault after an alleged fight at a house party in Moosonee.
Police say there was an altercation at the party on Oct. 3 and the following day, a woman was charged with assault.
After further investigation, police have charged Const. Tim Burgess, 45, with assault and Sharleen Burgess, 44, with assault and assault with a weapon.
Police won't say if the pair is related, but both live in Moosonee.
The charges were laid after two people sustained minor injuries at the party.
Const. Burgess, who has been with the force for 22 years and is stationed in Moosonee, was off duty at the time of the alleged incident.
Both are scheduled to appear in provincial court in Moosonee on April 7.
Updated: Thu Feb. 25 2010 11:40:03 AM
The Canadian Press
MOOSONEE, Ont. — Two more people including a provincial police officer have been charged with assault after an alleged fight at a house party in Moosonee.
Police say there was an altercation at the party on Oct. 3 and the following day, a woman was charged with assault.
After further investigation, police have charged Const. Tim Burgess, 45, with assault and Sharleen Burgess, 44, with assault and assault with a weapon.
Police won't say if the pair is related, but both live in Moosonee.
The charges were laid after two people sustained minor injuries at the party.
Const. Burgess, who has been with the force for 22 years and is stationed in Moosonee, was off duty at the time of the alleged incident.
Both are scheduled to appear in provincial court in Moosonee on April 7.
SIU charges officer four years after alleged assault
Source: Toronto SunBy ROB LAMBERTI, Toronto Sun (yes Rob Lamberti did really write this)
Last Updated: February 25, 2010 8:37pm
Shayne Fisher is getting his day in court.
The crane operator was acquitted of firearms charges in 2008 after he was arrested by Toronto Police drug squad officers during a 2006 raid.
Fisher suffered a perforated eardrum, a broken rib and bruising during the arrest, and Thursday the Special Investigations Unit charged Det.-Const. Gerrard Arulanandam with assault causing bodily harm.
This case is unique because the SIU didn’t know about the injuries until Superior Court Justice Brian Trafford ruled Fisher and his co-accused, Valter Almeida, then 23, were physically abused by police during the arrest.
The two were acquitted of all charges by Trafford, who ruled in his judgment that “clearly, the defendants were physically abused by the (Toronto Police Service) when they were arrested on June 7, 2006 ... Other legal rights, such as the right of Mr. Fisher to retain and instruct counsel, were also infringed.”
“I’m kind of happy, as weird as that sounds,” Fisher, 26, said Thursday. “It’s not a bad feeling.
“It’s not good to be happy that anybody gets charged, but justice takes a while here, I guess.”
Fisher was in the apartment of an acquaintance in the same Lawrence Ave. W. apartment building he lives in when police rushed in executing a warrant.
Steve Ruiz pleaded guilty to weapons and drugs charges.
The two years between being charged and being freed was “s----y. It’s not a good feeling,” Fisher said.
“It’s like I had two years of my life taken away.”
Fisher believed that when the cops rushed into the apartment he’d be considered a found-in and later be released.
“Unfortunately, no, it’s not like that,” he said.
Fisher said he wants “justice to take it’s course. Whatever happens, happens.”
His lawyer, Allan Lobel, said Fisher had no criminal record, suffered serious injuries in the raid and his eyes were swollen shut.
“In this case, (Fisher) was absolutely clearly innocent,” Lobel said. It wasn’t a case that the Crown lost because of a technicality, he said.
“The crime here, if you may, is that cops did this and then the buddy system kicked in. That’s the story here.”
Police said three guns were tossed from the third-storey balcony during the drug raid and almost hit an officer watching from below.
“They nearly hit me in the head,” Sgt. Don MacCallum told the Toronto Sun in 2006. “They were absolutely guns. They were cocked and the safety was off.”
MacCallum, now retired, is before the courts in Peel charged with sex-related offences that allegedly occurred between 1996 and 2003 involving girls aged five to 15. He wasn’t called as a witness in Fisher’s trial.
Toronto Police union president Mike McCormack said the association stands behind the officer and is instead concerned about “the conduct of the SIU.”
“This is four years after the event, the officer was doing his job,” he said.
The association will be looking at SIU to see if it’s fulfilling its stated mandate of investigating “Ontario’s police services by assuring the public that police actions resulting in serious injury or death are subjected to rigorous, independent investigations.”
McCormack is concerned if “they’re charging our officers for political allegiance or any other thing than based on factual evidence.
“All I can say, looking at the way the SIU has been dealing with our members, there are some concerns and we’re going to wait until this goes to court and the evidence comes out,” McCormack said. “We’ll be monitoring this very closely.
“We already looking at a number of cases and this will be another case that we’re going to be looking at.”
Last Updated: February 25, 2010 8:37pm
Shayne Fisher is getting his day in court.
The crane operator was acquitted of firearms charges in 2008 after he was arrested by Toronto Police drug squad officers during a 2006 raid.
Fisher suffered a perforated eardrum, a broken rib and bruising during the arrest, and Thursday the Special Investigations Unit charged Det.-Const. Gerrard Arulanandam with assault causing bodily harm.
This case is unique because the SIU didn’t know about the injuries until Superior Court Justice Brian Trafford ruled Fisher and his co-accused, Valter Almeida, then 23, were physically abused by police during the arrest.
The two were acquitted of all charges by Trafford, who ruled in his judgment that “clearly, the defendants were physically abused by the (Toronto Police Service) when they were arrested on June 7, 2006 ... Other legal rights, such as the right of Mr. Fisher to retain and instruct counsel, were also infringed.”
“I’m kind of happy, as weird as that sounds,” Fisher, 26, said Thursday. “It’s not a bad feeling.
“It’s not good to be happy that anybody gets charged, but justice takes a while here, I guess.”
Fisher was in the apartment of an acquaintance in the same Lawrence Ave. W. apartment building he lives in when police rushed in executing a warrant.
Steve Ruiz pleaded guilty to weapons and drugs charges.
The two years between being charged and being freed was “s----y. It’s not a good feeling,” Fisher said.
“It’s like I had two years of my life taken away.”
Fisher believed that when the cops rushed into the apartment he’d be considered a found-in and later be released.
“Unfortunately, no, it’s not like that,” he said.
Fisher said he wants “justice to take it’s course. Whatever happens, happens.”
His lawyer, Allan Lobel, said Fisher had no criminal record, suffered serious injuries in the raid and his eyes were swollen shut.
“In this case, (Fisher) was absolutely clearly innocent,” Lobel said. It wasn’t a case that the Crown lost because of a technicality, he said.
“The crime here, if you may, is that cops did this and then the buddy system kicked in. That’s the story here.”
Police said three guns were tossed from the third-storey balcony during the drug raid and almost hit an officer watching from below.
“They nearly hit me in the head,” Sgt. Don MacCallum told the Toronto Sun in 2006. “They were absolutely guns. They were cocked and the safety was off.”
MacCallum, now retired, is before the courts in Peel charged with sex-related offences that allegedly occurred between 1996 and 2003 involving girls aged five to 15. He wasn’t called as a witness in Fisher’s trial.
Toronto Police union president Mike McCormack said the association stands behind the officer and is instead concerned about “the conduct of the SIU.”
“This is four years after the event, the officer was doing his job,” he said.
The association will be looking at SIU to see if it’s fulfilling its stated mandate of investigating “Ontario’s police services by assuring the public that police actions resulting in serious injury or death are subjected to rigorous, independent investigations.”
McCormack is concerned if “they’re charging our officers for political allegiance or any other thing than based on factual evidence.
“All I can say, looking at the way the SIU has been dealing with our members, there are some concerns and we’re going to wait until this goes to court and the evidence comes out,” McCormack said. “We’ll be monitoring this very closely.
“We already looking at a number of cases and this will be another case that we’re going to be looking at.”
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Port Hope officer sentenced to probation on assault charge
Source:NORTHUMBERLAND TODAY
Port Hope Constable John Kelly Steeves should be able to continue on his job, in spite of probation conditions imposed upon his plea of guilty to an assault charge Friday in the Ontario Court of Justice in Cobourg.
Breach-of-condition charges were withdrawn against the 51-year-old accused, in spite of the fact that he admitted breaching a condition forbidding any intake of alcohol by ordering and consuming a bourbon at a licensed Port Hope establishment last October.
The ban was a condition of his release after he was arrested last March and charged with assaulting his common-law spouse.
Last March 17, Crown attorney Jim Hughes explained, a female police officer who was a friend of the victim passed along information of the incident to another female police officer and asked her to look into it.
When contacted on March 18, the victim said she had been concerned about Steeves's drinking. He was apparently intoxicated on March 15, when they began to argue.
During the course of the altercation, he grabbed her by the arm hard and squeezed it, and also yelled at her.
She still had bruising on her upper left arm when she spoke with the police officer, but did not want to pursue the matter. She changed her mind after March 20, when Steeves showed up at her residence and behaved in an intimidating manner.
"It was a difficult time for everybody involved," Hughes acknowledged, including the fact that officers who showed up to arrest Steeves were his own professional colleagues.
Steeves's record includes a prior breach-of-condition conviction from 2007, the Crown added. For that reason, the nature of the domestic nature of the assault and the alcohol problem (and given that alcohol can act as a disinhibitor), Hughes asked for a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.
In ordering a conditional discharge and a three-year probation, Justice William Babe agreed with the DNA order. But he advanced the opinion that a weapons prohibition could compromise Steeves's ability to carry out his job, which he has held for more than a decade.
So could an order to remain away from the victim in a small town like Port Hope, Babe added.
The victim has since lost the house they shared, but she has found a new apartment near her place of employment. As a result, Babe noted, Steeves's release conditions ordered him not to be in the area of Port Hope bounded by Walton St. to the north, Pine St. to the west, Queen St. to the east and Augusta St. to the south. Except when required to be there by his job, Babe ruled, Steeves will be forbidden by the conditions of his probation to be in that area.
He must also remain away from her at all other times and locations as well.
As for the firearms prohibition, Babe opted in favour of a probation condition that forbids the possession of any weapon by Steeves except when required by his job to carry one.
Hughes noted that two long guns had been seized from the accused's residence, and he was not aware whether they were properly licensed or whether Steeves had proper clearances to acquire them. At any event, he said, they will remain with the Port Hope Police Service for now.
Defence counsel Marc Bebee said that his client had already begun counselling on his own to address his alcohol problem.
Babe ruled that other counselling be part of his probation, including the Partner Assault Response Service program plus any other counselling -- such as alcohol or anger-management counselling -- his probation officer deems advisable.
cnasmith@northumberland today.com
Port Hope Constable John Kelly Steeves should be able to continue on his job, in spite of probation conditions imposed upon his plea of guilty to an assault charge Friday in the Ontario Court of Justice in Cobourg.
Breach-of-condition charges were withdrawn against the 51-year-old accused, in spite of the fact that he admitted breaching a condition forbidding any intake of alcohol by ordering and consuming a bourbon at a licensed Port Hope establishment last October.
The ban was a condition of his release after he was arrested last March and charged with assaulting his common-law spouse.
Last March 17, Crown attorney Jim Hughes explained, a female police officer who was a friend of the victim passed along information of the incident to another female police officer and asked her to look into it.
When contacted on March 18, the victim said she had been concerned about Steeves's drinking. He was apparently intoxicated on March 15, when they began to argue.
During the course of the altercation, he grabbed her by the arm hard and squeezed it, and also yelled at her.
She still had bruising on her upper left arm when she spoke with the police officer, but did not want to pursue the matter. She changed her mind after March 20, when Steeves showed up at her residence and behaved in an intimidating manner.
"It was a difficult time for everybody involved," Hughes acknowledged, including the fact that officers who showed up to arrest Steeves were his own professional colleagues.
Steeves's record includes a prior breach-of-condition conviction from 2007, the Crown added. For that reason, the nature of the domestic nature of the assault and the alcohol problem (and given that alcohol can act as a disinhibitor), Hughes asked for a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.
In ordering a conditional discharge and a three-year probation, Justice William Babe agreed with the DNA order. But he advanced the opinion that a weapons prohibition could compromise Steeves's ability to carry out his job, which he has held for more than a decade.
So could an order to remain away from the victim in a small town like Port Hope, Babe added.
The victim has since lost the house they shared, but she has found a new apartment near her place of employment. As a result, Babe noted, Steeves's release conditions ordered him not to be in the area of Port Hope bounded by Walton St. to the north, Pine St. to the west, Queen St. to the east and Augusta St. to the south. Except when required to be there by his job, Babe ruled, Steeves will be forbidden by the conditions of his probation to be in that area.
He must also remain away from her at all other times and locations as well.
As for the firearms prohibition, Babe opted in favour of a probation condition that forbids the possession of any weapon by Steeves except when required by his job to carry one.
Hughes noted that two long guns had been seized from the accused's residence, and he was not aware whether they were properly licensed or whether Steeves had proper clearances to acquire them. At any event, he said, they will remain with the Port Hope Police Service for now.
Defence counsel Marc Bebee said that his client had already begun counselling on his own to address his alcohol problem.
Babe ruled that other counselling be part of his probation, including the Partner Assault Response Service program plus any other counselling -- such as alcohol or anger-management counselling -- his probation officer deems advisable.
cnasmith@northumberland today.com
Defence dismantles testimony in trial of retired OPP officer
Source:My Kawarthra
Mary Riley
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 8:45 AM
Defence counsel for a retired OPP officer accused of dozens of historical sex-related offences continued to dismantle the testimony of one of the first witnesses in the case.
Leo Kinahan, representing Robert George (Bob) Lewis, is currently delivering final submissions in a Brampton courtroom before Justice Joseph Fragomeni.
Mr. Lewis, 62, of Fenelon Falls, was charged in 2006 with 25 sex-related offences dating back to the 1970s.
Many of the incidents allegedly occurred while on duty during his 30-year career with the Ontario Provincial Police. He was posted to Downsview, Islington, Minaki, Caledon and Coboconk before retiring in 1997. Caledon OPP began the investigation in 2006 after 10 male complainants came forward.
A publication ban prevents the publication of any details that could identify the witnesses.
Mr. Kinahan began his submissions Monday (Feb. 22). He began by attacking the credibility of two of the early witnessess in the trial, which began last May and concluded in December.
One witness had testified that Mr. Lewis molested him when he was a teenager while giving him a ride from his home in southern Ontario to visit friends in northern Ontario. During the trial last year, court heard the teenager was molested in the car and in a motel where the two spent a night on the trip.
The man alleged his descent into a life of alcohol and drug abuse was a direct result of the abuse he suffered at the hands of Mr. Lewis.
But, on Monday, Mr. Kinahan made it clear that historical sexual assault cases are dependent on the accuracy and veracity of witnesses' memories, and he challenged the fairness of such trials when the memory of the accused is also faulty. He told the court the number of inconsistencies in the man's testimony is "monstrous," accusing the witness of saying "whatever comes into his head" and that there are serious discrepancies in testimony the man gave to police at the preliminary hearing in 2008 and at trial.
Mr. Kinahan said the witness often used the phrase "I'm pretty sure" when answering specific questions about his allegations; questions the lawyer said "were not difficult." He continued to remind the court that when someone is accused of such serious crimes, "pretty sure" isn't good enough. He said the inconsistencies revealed in the testimony of most of the witnesses in the trial should be "disturbing" to the court.
Mr. Kinahan pointed out that nobody's memory is perfect and that it stands to reason a witness may be mistaken on what he called "minor" details, such as a specific date or a description of what was inside a room where an alleged offence took place. But he made it clear that "some details are not major points but they become significant in the overall assessment of credibility."
He told the court that an honest admission from a witness that he could not remember a given detail is preferable to giving "multiple versions" of an answer.
The lawyer attacked the man's testimony in which he said that when he and Mr. Lewis stayed in the motel, the "only" incident that occurred was fondling. That story, Mr. Kinahan said, later changed to allegations of anal penetration attempts and forced oral sex, "escalating" in different versions.
"How does one get that confused...four different versions on four different occasions?" Mr. Kinahan asked. "These aren't minor...they are major, major encounters."
He pointed to testimony in which the witness testified that some of his prior statements to investigating police and at the preliminary hearing were not consistent with his testimony at trial.
"Even on the most inconsequential things...he can't keep it straight. He will say the first thing that comes to his mind. If he had got up and said, 'Maybe some of the things I said yesterday weren't quite accurate,' it would be different.
"How does one forget [such sexual molestation]?" he continued.
Citing one point where the witness had testified, "Maybe I don't want to remember," Mr. Kinahan said, "This is not a shot at [the man]...maybe it's something [he] thinks happened through his years of alcohol and drug abuse."
Mr. Kinahan said trying to reconcile the man's initial statement to police and testimony at the preliminary hearing and trial could take days.
"It's impossible to keep track of the inconsistencies...for the sake of brevity, I'm bypassing a significant number of contradictions. It's astounding.
"Even when confronted with his own words, he won't give a straight answer or acknowledge an inconsistency."
Submissions continue this week. .
Mary Riley
|
Feb 23, 2010 - 8:45 AM
Defence counsel for a retired OPP officer accused of dozens of historical sex-related offences continued to dismantle the testimony of one of the first witnesses in the case.
Leo Kinahan, representing Robert George (Bob) Lewis, is currently delivering final submissions in a Brampton courtroom before Justice Joseph Fragomeni.
Mr. Lewis, 62, of Fenelon Falls, was charged in 2006 with 25 sex-related offences dating back to the 1970s.
Many of the incidents allegedly occurred while on duty during his 30-year career with the Ontario Provincial Police. He was posted to Downsview, Islington, Minaki, Caledon and Coboconk before retiring in 1997. Caledon OPP began the investigation in 2006 after 10 male complainants came forward.
A publication ban prevents the publication of any details that could identify the witnesses.
Mr. Kinahan began his submissions Monday (Feb. 22). He began by attacking the credibility of two of the early witnessess in the trial, which began last May and concluded in December.
One witness had testified that Mr. Lewis molested him when he was a teenager while giving him a ride from his home in southern Ontario to visit friends in northern Ontario. During the trial last year, court heard the teenager was molested in the car and in a motel where the two spent a night on the trip.
The man alleged his descent into a life of alcohol and drug abuse was a direct result of the abuse he suffered at the hands of Mr. Lewis.
But, on Monday, Mr. Kinahan made it clear that historical sexual assault cases are dependent on the accuracy and veracity of witnesses' memories, and he challenged the fairness of such trials when the memory of the accused is also faulty. He told the court the number of inconsistencies in the man's testimony is "monstrous," accusing the witness of saying "whatever comes into his head" and that there are serious discrepancies in testimony the man gave to police at the preliminary hearing in 2008 and at trial.
Mr. Kinahan said the witness often used the phrase "I'm pretty sure" when answering specific questions about his allegations; questions the lawyer said "were not difficult." He continued to remind the court that when someone is accused of such serious crimes, "pretty sure" isn't good enough. He said the inconsistencies revealed in the testimony of most of the witnesses in the trial should be "disturbing" to the court.
Mr. Kinahan pointed out that nobody's memory is perfect and that it stands to reason a witness may be mistaken on what he called "minor" details, such as a specific date or a description of what was inside a room where an alleged offence took place. But he made it clear that "some details are not major points but they become significant in the overall assessment of credibility."
He told the court that an honest admission from a witness that he could not remember a given detail is preferable to giving "multiple versions" of an answer.
The lawyer attacked the man's testimony in which he said that when he and Mr. Lewis stayed in the motel, the "only" incident that occurred was fondling. That story, Mr. Kinahan said, later changed to allegations of anal penetration attempts and forced oral sex, "escalating" in different versions.
"How does one get that confused...four different versions on four different occasions?" Mr. Kinahan asked. "These aren't minor...they are major, major encounters."
He pointed to testimony in which the witness testified that some of his prior statements to investigating police and at the preliminary hearing were not consistent with his testimony at trial.
"Even on the most inconsequential things...he can't keep it straight. He will say the first thing that comes to his mind. If he had got up and said, 'Maybe some of the things I said yesterday weren't quite accurate,' it would be different.
"How does one forget [such sexual molestation]?" he continued.
Citing one point where the witness had testified, "Maybe I don't want to remember," Mr. Kinahan said, "This is not a shot at [the man]...maybe it's something [he] thinks happened through his years of alcohol and drug abuse."
Mr. Kinahan said trying to reconcile the man's initial statement to police and testimony at the preliminary hearing and trial could take days.
"It's impossible to keep track of the inconsistencies...for the sake of brevity, I'm bypassing a significant number of contradictions. It's astounding.
"Even when confronted with his own words, he won't give a straight answer or acknowledge an inconsistency."
Submissions continue this week. .
Police chiefs seek flexibility on paying suspended officers
Source:The Observer
CATHY DOBSON
The Observer
Ontario's chiefs of police should have the right to suspend an officer without pay if a criminal offence is committed during off-duty hours, say Sarnia's mayor and police chief.
Chief Phil Nelson and Mayor Mike Bradley said Monday they support a new white paper submitted by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) recommend the province amend the Ontario Police Services Act.
"It's a very touchy situation with the public," Chief Nelson said. "They're greatly concerned about officers collecting their pay while sitting at home doing nothing for a long period of time."
Many people don't realize the Police Services Act currently prohibits suspensions without pay, Nelson said.
Unlike most Ontario workplaces, the employer has no discretion to decide if wages should be paid when an officer is under suspension for an off-duty offence.
Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick have already amended their police-related legislation to allow for suspensions without pay in certain circumstances.
The OACP has been lobbying the Ontario government for years for similar amendments with no results.
Sarnia currently has three officers suspended with pay. All are first class constables earning a minimum of $83,000 a year, plus benefits.
They include Const. Steven Wyville and Patrick Nahmabin who received discharges from the court last September after being unlawfully in a home, where they were looking for Nahmabin's stolen badge. The discharges left both veteran officers without criminal records and no jail time.
Unless an officer is sentenced to jail time, the Police Services Act does not allow pay to be withdrawn.
Wyville and Nahmabin continue to be suspended while they wait for a Police Act hearing in March, which could result in internal discipline.
A third unnamed officer, charged in November with sex crimes involving children, is also suspended with pay.
"I have no choice but to suspend them with pay. I am bound by the Act," said Nelson. "The general consensus with chiefs of police across the province is that they want the legislation changed so that they may, case by case, be able in certain situations to suspend officers for incidents that occur off-duty, as opposed to on-duty."
Mayor Bradley, chairman of Sarnia's police services board, agrees.
"When it comes down to an incident off-duty, it would seem to me to be fair and reasonable for a chief to have discretion," he said. "They may not exercise it, but they'd like to have it."
The integrity of policing is compromised in the public's view if a chief can't suspend an officer without pay in extraordinary circumstances, Bradley added.
Marc Toutant, representing the Sarnia Police Association, said he hasn't read the white paper yet but is aware of the public backlash whenever an officer is suspended with pay.
"My concern is that if a person is found not guilty, what then?" Toutant asked. "I also wonder if an officer would be entitled to seek employment elsewhere if suspended without pay." He said the police association has yet to take a position on the issue.
Sarnia's Police Services Board will receive the white paper for information only on Thursday during its regular monthly meeting at police headquarters.
cdobson@theobserver.ca
CATHY DOBSON
The Observer
Ontario's chiefs of police should have the right to suspend an officer without pay if a criminal offence is committed during off-duty hours, say Sarnia's mayor and police chief.
Chief Phil Nelson and Mayor Mike Bradley said Monday they support a new white paper submitted by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) recommend the province amend the Ontario Police Services Act.
"It's a very touchy situation with the public," Chief Nelson said. "They're greatly concerned about officers collecting their pay while sitting at home doing nothing for a long period of time."
Many people don't realize the Police Services Act currently prohibits suspensions without pay, Nelson said.
Unlike most Ontario workplaces, the employer has no discretion to decide if wages should be paid when an officer is under suspension for an off-duty offence.
Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick have already amended their police-related legislation to allow for suspensions without pay in certain circumstances.
The OACP has been lobbying the Ontario government for years for similar amendments with no results.
Sarnia currently has three officers suspended with pay. All are first class constables earning a minimum of $83,000 a year, plus benefits.
They include Const. Steven Wyville and Patrick Nahmabin who received discharges from the court last September after being unlawfully in a home, where they were looking for Nahmabin's stolen badge. The discharges left both veteran officers without criminal records and no jail time.
Unless an officer is sentenced to jail time, the Police Services Act does not allow pay to be withdrawn.
Wyville and Nahmabin continue to be suspended while they wait for a Police Act hearing in March, which could result in internal discipline.
A third unnamed officer, charged in November with sex crimes involving children, is also suspended with pay.
"I have no choice but to suspend them with pay. I am bound by the Act," said Nelson. "The general consensus with chiefs of police across the province is that they want the legislation changed so that they may, case by case, be able in certain situations to suspend officers for incidents that occur off-duty, as opposed to on-duty."
Mayor Bradley, chairman of Sarnia's police services board, agrees.
"When it comes down to an incident off-duty, it would seem to me to be fair and reasonable for a chief to have discretion," he said. "They may not exercise it, but they'd like to have it."
The integrity of policing is compromised in the public's view if a chief can't suspend an officer without pay in extraordinary circumstances, Bradley added.
Marc Toutant, representing the Sarnia Police Association, said he hasn't read the white paper yet but is aware of the public backlash whenever an officer is suspended with pay.
"My concern is that if a person is found not guilty, what then?" Toutant asked. "I also wonder if an officer would be entitled to seek employment elsewhere if suspended without pay." He said the police association has yet to take a position on the issue.
Sarnia's Police Services Board will receive the white paper for information only on Thursday during its regular monthly meeting at police headquarters.
cdobson@theobserver.ca
Olympic RCMP officer charged
Source:sympatico.ca
An RCMP officer assigned to security duties for the Winter Olympics has been charged with theft under $5,000 in connection with an alleged shoplifting incident in Burnaby, B.C.
Charged was Staff Sgt. Suzanne Martel, a 19-year RCMP veteran stationed in Ottawa who had been temporarily seconded to the Integrated Security Unit, the combined force performing security duties for the Games.
The charges against Martel were confirmed late Friday by Robin Baird, a Crown counsel with B.C.'s Justice Branch.
The theft allegedly occurred Feb. 11 at a Winners clothing store in Burnaby.
The officer was among 11 members of the Integrated Security Unit (ISU) in Vancouver who have been relieved of their duties. Most of them have been sent home for unspecified disciplinary infractions, including two who remain under investigation by the Vancouver Police Department.
Police have not released details about most of the investigations or the identity of the officers involved, but last week it was revealed six members of the ISU were removed from the Olympic unit, including two RCMP members and four Canadian Forces personnel.
On Friday, ISU spokesman Sgt. Mike Cote confirmed that five more police officers have since run into trouble and been sent home, bringing the total to 11, including the two still under investigation.
But Cote bristled at the suggestion of discreditable behaviour by officers who are billeted aboard cruise ships docked in Vancouver.
"I'd like to make it clear right here, right now, there's been allegations of sex-trade workers being brought on the ship and so on. I can emphatically state today that is absolutely not true. None of those incidences ever took place," he said.
He said it has been "disturbing" to have the unit painted with such a brush.
The ISU is made up of about 3,000 police officers from Metro Vancouver and about 6,000 police officers and military personnel from out of town who are lodged on the ships for the duration of the 2010 Winter Games. The cost of the force is about $1 billion.
The Games wrap up in Vancouver and Whistler on Feb. 28.
An RCMP officer assigned to security duties for the Winter Olympics has been charged with theft under $5,000 in connection with an alleged shoplifting incident in Burnaby, B.C.
Charged was Staff Sgt. Suzanne Martel, a 19-year RCMP veteran stationed in Ottawa who had been temporarily seconded to the Integrated Security Unit, the combined force performing security duties for the Games.
The charges against Martel were confirmed late Friday by Robin Baird, a Crown counsel with B.C.'s Justice Branch.
The theft allegedly occurred Feb. 11 at a Winners clothing store in Burnaby.
The officer was among 11 members of the Integrated Security Unit (ISU) in Vancouver who have been relieved of their duties. Most of them have been sent home for unspecified disciplinary infractions, including two who remain under investigation by the Vancouver Police Department.
Police have not released details about most of the investigations or the identity of the officers involved, but last week it was revealed six members of the ISU were removed from the Olympic unit, including two RCMP members and four Canadian Forces personnel.
On Friday, ISU spokesman Sgt. Mike Cote confirmed that five more police officers have since run into trouble and been sent home, bringing the total to 11, including the two still under investigation.
But Cote bristled at the suggestion of discreditable behaviour by officers who are billeted aboard cruise ships docked in Vancouver.
"I'd like to make it clear right here, right now, there's been allegations of sex-trade workers being brought on the ship and so on. I can emphatically state today that is absolutely not true. None of those incidences ever took place," he said.
He said it has been "disturbing" to have the unit painted with such a brush.
The ISU is made up of about 3,000 police officers from Metro Vancouver and about 6,000 police officers and military personnel from out of town who are lodged on the ships for the duration of the 2010 Winter Games. The cost of the force is about $1 billion.
The Games wrap up in Vancouver and Whistler on Feb. 28.
Bentley won't rule out giving Caledonia land to Six Nations
Source:The Spec
February 23, 2010
The Canadian Press
TORONTO (Feb 23, 2010)
Aboriginal Affairs Minister Chris Bentley isn't ruling out the handover of disputed land that's been the site of a long-running aboriginal occupation in Caledonia to the Six Nations.
"No decisions have been made with respect to the land," Bentley told the legislature yesterday.
"We continue to work very, very hard as a province, trying to bring everybody to the table and look forward to an ever more energetic federal government to help resolve a 200-year-old land claim."
Bentley, who is also Ontario's attorney general, played down the possibility that he's considering handing over the former housing development, which is held in trust by the province but still occupied by Six Nations protesters.
But when asked twice outside the chamber if he would rule out a handover, he was tight-lipped.
His silence proves that a handover is still on the table, said Opposition Leader Tim Hudak.
"This is going to reward lawbreaking, it's going to reward an illegal occupation and it sends a complete wrong signal on how to deal with this situation," he said.
Haldimand County Mayor Marie Trainer said she felt the government was leaning toward handing over the former Douglas Creek Estates to the Six Nations during a meeting with Bentley last Friday.
"That was my impression," she said. "That's how I took it."
During the meeting, Bentley "made it quite clear that if our communities are to move forward, we must learn to work together," she said.
"And he made that very, very clear."
The simmering four-year land dispute, which has erupted in violent clashes between protesters and local residents, has cost taxpayers $64.3 million so far.
That doesn't include about $16 million the province paid for the land, which was seized and occupied by protesters from the nearby Six Nations reserve on Feb. 28, 2006.
The government has said protesters can remain there while all sides negotiate a resolution to the land claim.
The total cost also excludes a recent out-of-court settlement between the Ontario government and a Caledonia couple, Dana Chatwell and Dave Brown.
Instead of punting the responsibility to Ottawa, Bentley should speed up the process of verifying land claims in Ontario, said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos.
"For the attorney general to whine about the federal government just boggles the mind," Kormos said.
"It's been provincial taxpayers' money that's been invested in this conflict, it's been provincial politicians who've purported to have been there addressing it, and it's the province that has the capacity to end this incredible standoff and restore some level of peace to Caledonia and the area around it."
The federal government kicked in $26.4 million to reimburse the province for the cost of purchasing the residential subdivision, which was then under construction. The money included $10.6 million to offset policing costs.
February 23, 2010
The Canadian Press
TORONTO (Feb 23, 2010)
Aboriginal Affairs Minister Chris Bentley isn't ruling out the handover of disputed land that's been the site of a long-running aboriginal occupation in Caledonia to the Six Nations.
"No decisions have been made with respect to the land," Bentley told the legislature yesterday.
"We continue to work very, very hard as a province, trying to bring everybody to the table and look forward to an ever more energetic federal government to help resolve a 200-year-old land claim."
Bentley, who is also Ontario's attorney general, played down the possibility that he's considering handing over the former housing development, which is held in trust by the province but still occupied by Six Nations protesters.
But when asked twice outside the chamber if he would rule out a handover, he was tight-lipped.
His silence proves that a handover is still on the table, said Opposition Leader Tim Hudak.
"This is going to reward lawbreaking, it's going to reward an illegal occupation and it sends a complete wrong signal on how to deal with this situation," he said.
Haldimand County Mayor Marie Trainer said she felt the government was leaning toward handing over the former Douglas Creek Estates to the Six Nations during a meeting with Bentley last Friday.
"That was my impression," she said. "That's how I took it."
During the meeting, Bentley "made it quite clear that if our communities are to move forward, we must learn to work together," she said.
"And he made that very, very clear."
The simmering four-year land dispute, which has erupted in violent clashes between protesters and local residents, has cost taxpayers $64.3 million so far.
That doesn't include about $16 million the province paid for the land, which was seized and occupied by protesters from the nearby Six Nations reserve on Feb. 28, 2006.
The government has said protesters can remain there while all sides negotiate a resolution to the land claim.
The total cost also excludes a recent out-of-court settlement between the Ontario government and a Caledonia couple, Dana Chatwell and Dave Brown.
Instead of punting the responsibility to Ottawa, Bentley should speed up the process of verifying land claims in Ontario, said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos.
"For the attorney general to whine about the federal government just boggles the mind," Kormos said.
"It's been provincial taxpayers' money that's been invested in this conflict, it's been provincial politicians who've purported to have been there addressing it, and it's the province that has the capacity to end this incredible standoff and restore some level of peace to Caledonia and the area around it."
The federal government kicked in $26.4 million to reimburse the province for the cost of purchasing the residential subdivision, which was then under construction. The money included $10.6 million to offset policing costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
No more taxes after HST...I promise!
They had No Choice!
They wore these or I took away thier toys for 7 days!
No kidding!
"Damn Street Racer"pays with Brusies
