|
Post by peter on Jul 24, 2009 7:33:22 GMT -5
The cost of prosecuting a South Simcoe Police officer, who has been suspended with pay since February 2008, is continuing to spiral.
Police services board chairperson Patti Vanderdonk told the board Monday that the force’s legal bills are “substantially” over budget this year due to the ongoing internal disciplinary hearing.
Vanderdonk said she will attend Innisfil and Bradford West Gwillimbury council meetings within the next month to explain the cost over runs to local politicians.
Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor Doug White said the high cost of an ongoing discipline case is an unusual situation for South Simcoe Police.
“We can’t plan for disciplinary issues; they just happen. This is not the norm,” White told the board. “The police officers have rights to defend themselves and there are costs for us associated with that.”
An officer was charged under the Police Services Act in early 2008. Those charges led to a disciplinary hearing under the act, which is akin to a judicial proceeding. Those hearings are open to the public, with the next date set for late September.
Deputy Chief Allan Cheesman said the force has a policy of not commenting on internal discipline issues.
However, South Simcoe Police Association president Staff-Sgt. Brian Miller said the Police Act charges are related to “job performance” issues.
“I don’t want to get into the particulars because it’s pretty complex,” Miller said.
Miller, who has been the force’s police union president for 16 years, said the chief fired the officer. The association claims the dismissal was “unlawful” and has filed a complaint with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, a provincial agency that oversees police departments.
After the association complained about the officer’s dismissal he was reinstated only to be suspended with pay in February 2008 after he was charged under the Police Services Act.
“He has been paid ever since,” Miller said. “We have one less officer on the road who could be on the road protecting the public.”
Miller said the hearings have been difficult for other South Simcoe Police officers who have been called as witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Oct 1, 2009 16:48:01 GMT -5
South Simcoe Police Chief Bruce Davis didn’t realize he had contravened the Ontario Police Services Act by firing a constable until he was challenged, he told a discipline tribunal Tuesday.
A few hours after Davis fired Const. David Oliver on the advice of legal counsel, the chief received a fax from defense lawyer Harry Black countering the move.
“Be advised that you have no such authority,” Black wrote to Davis on February 11, 2008. “David Oliver remains a member of the South Simcoe Police Service and the service continues to be obligated by law to pay him his salary and all related benefits.”
Within about 48 hours, Davis reinstated Oliver only to suspend him with pay after issuing charges under the Police Services Act.
Davis said he learned the dismissal was improper after police service’s lawyer Richard Baldwin acknowledged a mistake had been made.
Oliver’s internal disciplinary hearing, which began in May, has Oliver answering charges of unsatisfactory work performance. Retired Toronto police Supt. Neale Tweedy, an experienced hearing officer, who will ultimately provide a ruling.
As the prosecution wrapped up its case with the police chief on the stand, Black voiced disbelief in the chief’s assertion that he believed he had the authority to fire a constable.
Black cited 37 years of police service with increasing supervisory responsibility, and Davis’ own experience conducting hearings as evidence of the veteran officer’s expertise. Davis was also the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police in 2000.
“That was my understanding at that point,” Davis affirmed under oath, acknowledging he had never seen or heard of a chief terminating a constable before. He told the hearing he did not bring this experience to his lawyer’s attention to question the advice he was originally given. “I was assured I could do that and so I did,” he said. “I accept responsibility for taking that advice from him.”
Black reminded Davis that the Police Services Act allows for dismissal only after a “misconduct is proven on clear and convincing evidence” during a hearing.
The police association claims the dismissal was “unlawful” and has filed a complaint with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, a provincial agency that oversees police departments.
Oliver was fired by Davis after he had been placed on extended probation had been notified in October 2007 that his job was on the line if he failed to improve.
Throughout this period, the officer continued to receive mixed reviews for his work, according to evidence presented at the hearing.
In an earlier testimony, Staff-Sgt. John Van d**e, who oversaw the probationary period as the officer in charge of the platoon to which Oliver was assigned, said the constable spoke of high stress levels, confusion and frustration. In one report Van d**e suggested there were too many coach officers in place watching Oliver and stated they had insufficient time to fairly assess the situation.
He outlined Oliver’s slow report writing, and improper searching and handcuffing techniques, even while complimenting his attitude and interpersonal abilities.
Black listed commendations in Oliver’s personnel file highlighting his positive attitude, personal ethics and people skills. The chief agreed when Black suggested Oliver was exactly the kind of person who would be welcome in the service.
However, the chief pointed to the constable’s continued failure to measure up in the “meat and potatoes” aspects of the job.
Davis recounted indecisiveness, poor judgment and a lack of time management as contributing factors to the officer’s extended probationary period, and eventual dismissal.
“I considered his conduct to be inappropriate,” Davis told the hearing of his comments to Oliver less than two weeks prior to the termination. “He should be progressing further than that of a four-week recruit and he would have to come up to the standard or his employment would be terminated.”
However, Black said he will show the hearing that Oliver performed his duties up to standard.
“It’s a completely unsubstantiated allegation,” Black told The Journal outside of the hearing. “He’s going to show evidence he performed his work in a completely satisfactory manner.”
The hearing will resume with the defense’s case after Thanksgiving.
I find this interesting reading , it almost appears to me that the chief of South Simcoe Police Services wants his men to be more aggressive when dealing with the public.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Nov 5, 2009 18:35:08 GMT -5
A suspended South Simcoe Police officer told his discipline tribunal last Friday he wouldn’t have taken a helicopter ride with York Regional Police had he known it would cause him so much trouble.
Const. David Oliver testified that he didn’t believe he needed permission from a superior to take a ride in York’s police helicopter because he was taking the flight while off duty.
“I didn’t think it was any big deal because I was going while off duty,” Oliver said. “In light of this whole thing, I wouldn’t have bothered with the helicopter ride.”
It was the May 2007 chopper ride along that led Chief Bruce Davis to fire Oliver eight months later.
Davis gave Oliver a letter of termination on Feb. 11 2008, offering the officer one-month pay as severance.
In the letter, Davis charged Oliver misrepresented himself to York Regional Police as a member of Simcoe’s traffic unit and the street-racing team known as Project Erase so he could take the helicopter ride.
“At no time were you assigned to this unit nor the project and at no time did you seek or obtain permission from this service to do this,” Davis states in the termination notice. “We believe we are entitled to dismiss you for just cause.”
But Oliver was reinstated a few hours later when Davis learned he had contravened the Police Service Act by firing the officer, discipline that can only be meted out following a formal disciplinary hearing.
Davis followed proper procedure about 48 hours later by charging Oliver with discreditable conduct and deceit under the Act.
Oliver has been suspended with full pay and benefits ever since. His disciplinary hearing, which has been sitting sporadically, began last May.
The tribunal’s hearing officer, retired Toronto Police Supt. Neale Tweedy, has heard several South Simcoe officers testify that Oliver did not perform up to standard in several areas of policing during his short time with the force.
But it was the helicopter ride he took at the invitation of a York officer that prosecutor David Cowling focused on during much of his cross-examination Friday.
“So you must have been pretty excited to be able to go on this helicopter ride?” Cowling suggested. “I’ve been in helicopters before,” Oliver responded. “It’s great if I can go for a ride, but it’s not that big a deal. I’ve been on them when I worked up north.”
Oliver said he was attending a Project Erase function at Buttonville Airport in Markham with his training officer when a York Regional officer asked him if he wanted to return to take a helicopter ride sometime.
“The constable asked if I ever wanted to go for a ride I should let him know. It was all very casual,” Oliver said. “I asked him if I could go off duty and he said, sure it doesn’t matter.”
Oliver later called a York Regional Police sergeant to get approval for the flight, telling him that he was a South Simcoe officer and was interested in traffic enforcement.
But Cowling said the York Regional Police sergeant testified that he believed Oliver was with Project Erase.
Oliver said it wasn’t until July about two months after the chopper ride that he told South Simcoe Police Sgt. Steve Wilson during a meeting that he had taken the flight.
The hearing heard that Wilson did not raise the issue again for months when he decided to investigate.
The tribunal also heard that Oliver was charged with several job performance inadequacies, including failing to properly handcuff a prisoner and failing to inform a suspect of his right to counsel.
But in each case, Oliver disagreed with the testimony of other officers, saying they were either mistaken or inaccurate.
“It’s always someone else, isn’t it Const. Oliver?” Cowling charged. “Do you think there is some kind of conspiracy here?”
Oliver responded by saying he was uneasy about some of the testimony he had heard during his disciplinary hearing.
“It’s a little more clear to me when I hear things like, ‘Let’s wrap it up in a pretty bow; It would be nice if this went to a fight’, and ‘Don’t give David Oliver a chance to respond,’” Oliver said. “Conspiracy is your word. All I’m saying is how I feel about what I’ve heard.”
The comment “wrap it up in a pretty bow” was made during a telephone conversation between Davis and the force’s lawyer Richard Baldwin. Human resources manager Deborah Carmichael recorded that conversation.
The hearing continues Nov. 23 with closing arguments from defence lawyer Harry Black.
If found guilty, Oliver faces several possible punishments up to and including dismissal from the force.
Meanwhile, a complaint against Davis has been filed with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services over Oliver’s “unlawful” dismissal. The commission is a provincial agency that oversees police departments.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Nov 27, 2009 7:50:44 GMT -5
South Simcoe Police Chief Bruce Davis jumped the gun when he initiated disciplinary measures against Const. David Oliver, defense lawyer Harry Black told a tribunal hearing charges of deceit and discreditable conduct against the officer.
“They’re putting him on trial and they haven’t even complied with their own directive,” said Black as he wrapped up his closing arguments last Monday.
Black pointed to a policy that requires comments from the public in three random occurrences handled by the officer whose performance is under review. “They didn’t do that.”
Black dismissed accusations against Oliver as one-sided, irrelevant, redundant and, in one case, pure “fiction.”
Oliver has been suspended with pay since his Feb. 11, 2008 when he was formally charged with discreditable conduct and deceit under the Police Services Act.
The tribunal has heard Davis attempted to fire the officer, offering six weeks severance pay. But the dismissal was quickly reversed after Black contacted the chief to tell him he did not have the authority to fire an officer under the Police Services Act. Davis then followed proper procedure, leading to the disciplinary tribunal that has been sitting periodically since May, 2009.
Retired Toronto Police Supt. Neale Tweedy, the hearing officer, has heard testimony from several South Simcoe officers detailing incidents during which Oliver did not perform up to standard in several areas of policing during his short time with the force.
Black reminded the tribunal of balancing evidence that also complimented Oliver’s detailed note-taking, patience, work ethic and attitude, calming influence and affinity for dealing with the public.
In reviewing Davis’ testimony, Black recounted the chief’s agreement that Oliver had the “kind of qualities you’d want in a police officer.”
Black admitted Oliver may not be a perfect police officer, but says that in itself does not support the charges of unsatisfactory work performance.
“There is no standard of perfection here,” Black told the hearing.
An off-duty helicopter ride Oliver took with York Regional Police in May 2007 sparked Davis’ decision to “unlawfully” dismiss the officer and later charge him.
In a termination notice, Davis said Oliver misrepresented himself to York Regional Police as a member of Simcoe’s traffic unit and the street-racing team known as Project ERASE.
“At no time were you assigned to this unit nor the project and at no time did you seek or obtain permission from this service to do this,” the notice states. “We believe we are entitled to dismiss you for just cause.”
Despite assumptions that may have been made by York officers due to Oliver’s attendance at an ERASE event with his training officer, Black says the evidence clearly shows Oliver identified himself as a member of the South Simcoe Police Service with an interest in traffic work and nothing more.
Further, Oliver didn’t’ need permission from his superiors for the chopper ride because he was off duty, Black said.
Black also debunked testimony from a fellow Simcoe officer who claims he was endangered when Oliver continued to take notes rather than assist during a “hostile” situation.
The defense lawyer questioned the veracity of the charge at all, suggesting it was a sour-grapes “fiction” that was only raised three weeks after the fact. The officer who laid the complaint discovered Oliver had complained about his profane language during the same incident, Black said.
“There was nothing in the notes about Oliver not doing his duty,” Black said, referring to the other officer’s “oversight” in neglecting to detail the alleged assault. He also said witnesses recalled the situation as far less volatile.
Black questioned why an officer who testified he had been concerned for his life would wait weeks before reporting the incident.
The prosecution presents its closing arguments Nov. 30 in the Bradford police station. Meanwhile, a complaint against Davis over Oliver’s “unlawful” dismissal has been filed with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, a provincial agency overseeing police departments.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Dec 3, 2009 8:19:09 GMT -5
It’s “preposterous” to suggest misconduct charges against a South Simcoe Police officer are part of a conspiracy, prosecutor David Cowling said during his six-hour closing argument Monday.
Const. David Oliver’s disciplinary hearing, which includes an allegation that he lied to get a helicopter ride with York Regional Police, neared its conclusion in Bradford Monday.
Facing allegations of sub-standard work performance, deceit and discreditable conduct, Oliver and his lawyer Harry Black remained silent throughout the day as Cowling, backed by the two colleagues, attacked Oliver’s judgment, credibility and work performance.
Oliver, who has been suspended with full pay since February 2008, should be fired because he is unsuitable for the job, Cowling told hearing officer Neale Tweedy.
When pointing to discrepancies between Oliver’s testimony and evidence given by fellow police officers, Cowling asked the tribunal to discount the defendant’s version of events, saying there was no motive for a conspiracy. “There simply isn’t support for that,” he said.
In earlier testimony, Oliver said the reason for his suspension became clear when he heard evidence that his superiors and police lawyers made statements such as, “Let’s wrap it up in a pretty bow; It would be nice if this went to a fight’, and ‘Don’t give David Oliver a chance to respond.”
Cowling accused Oliver of being evasive and refusing to accept responsibility for any wrongdoing.
Highlighting an excerpt from his cross-examination, Cowling reminded the hearing of repeatedly asking Oliver why he thought he did a better job on the first day of a training session when his training officer said his second day was a better effort.
In response, Oliver kept saying it was just his impression of the day’s scenarios and didn’t know how to state his belief clearer.
“The cross-examination clearly illustrates what kind of witness he was,” Cowling concluded, saying Oliver was trying “to tailor his evidence out of self interest.”
The lack of credibility shown during the hearing goes further in suggesting Oliver is unsuited for police work, and provides additional evidence to the charges of unsatisfactory work performance, the prosecutor said.
The prosecution maintained credibility is an important factor, especially in the case of a police officer.
However, police dismissals are historically “reserved for the more extreme cases,” such as those involving criminal charges against an officer, Tweedy said.
“The test is a high test,” he said. “It’s a character-attribute test” with a very high threshold. “Here, they’re taking more of a labour-law approach to it,” Tweedy said of the prosecution’s case.
Oliver faces charges of misconduct in connection to an off-duty ride along in a York Regional Police traffic helicopter that occurred without the knowledge of the South Simcoe Police Service. Oliver contends he didn’t need permission because he went on the chopper ride while he was off duty.
Oliver has also been accused of unsatisfactory work performance, which has been challenged by Black and countered with a lengthy list of documented accolades.
The May 2007 helicopter ride falls outside the six-month period being assessed by Tweedy, but the prosecution contends it is still relevant due to the late discovery of the incident. Oliver says his superior officers were informed much earlier of the event.
Oliver was actually fired by Chief Bruce Davis in February 2008, but was reinstated because the dismissal did not follow the Police Services Act. Oliver was suspended about a week later using proper procedure. Police Act charges were eventually laid on April 18, 2008.
The hearing called to examine those charges got underway in May 2009 at the Bradford police station.
Tweedy, a retired Toronto Police Superintendent, will take all the evidence into consideration after Black has the opportunity to rebut Cowling’s arguments today at 10 a.m.
Tweedy will then decide Oliver’s fate, which can include disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Feb 12, 2010 4:34:22 GMT -5
A South Simcoe Police officer has been cleared of all disciplinary charges against him in a case that saw the actions of Chief Bruce Davis and other officers criticized.
The tribunal’s hearing officer, retired Toronto Police Supt. Neale Tweedy, found Const. David Oliver not guilty today of deceit, discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, insubordination and unsatisfactory work performance.
During his ruling, Tweedy pointed to several problems with some officers who testified against Oliver, most notably the chief’s “unlawful” termination of Oliver in February 2008.
While testifying before the tribunal last November, Davis said he didn’t realize he had contravened the Police Services Act by firing Oliver and was acting on legal advice.
But Tweedy rejected that claim, saying any police leader in Ontario should have known an officer can only be terminated after being found guilty following a disciplinary hearing.
“The chief should have known this without the use of a lawyer,” Tweedy said. “This is not obscure. It is fundamental to all police and is understood by all police leaders throughout this province.”
A complaint against Davis has already been filed with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services over Oliver’s unlawful dismissal.
Prosecutors alleged poor performance in several areas, including search techniques, note taking and how suspects were handcuffed.
But Tweedy said overall evidence that Oliver performed substandard police work “did not rise to a clear and convincing standard.
“These are not allegations that deal with attributes of character such as honesty,” Tweedy said. “Const. Oliver seemed to have an enthusiastic desire to improve and his commitment to community should be viewed as exemplary.”
Tweedy found no evidence to support an allegation that Oliver “failed to defuse a hostile situation by continuing to take witness statements” at an Alcona bar while Const. Matt Tomlin dealt with the altercation.
“I reject Tomlin’s findings as not being credible,” Tweedy said. “It was not a hostile event. It was not a threatening situation.”
Tweedy also criticized Sgt. Steve Wilson for conducting a “biased and incomplete” misconduct investigation.
Tweedy said Oliver’s decision to file a complaint against Tomlin for using profanity in public was a “culminating event that led to threats of termination if his work performance didn’t improve.”
Tweedy also pointed to a “questionable transfer the day after he blew the whistle a second time on Tomlin.”
“This impacted Const. Oliver’s status within the service,” Tweedy said. “He was subjected to threats of termination that were outside the law.”
Oliver has been suspended with pay since he was charged two years ago.
The disciplinary case caught the attention of Innisfil politicians last summer when they were told the cost of the case had “substantially increased” the police legal budget.
|
|
|
Post by fishermccann on Feb 12, 2010 17:08:55 GMT -5
Sounds fair to me but he better find a new job as he has no future there.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Feb 22, 2010 4:56:18 GMT -5
Full ruling in police discipline case www.innisfiljournal.com/innisfil_journal/article/155879 Now because the officer got cleared guess who’s facing liability for there actions? Davis has nothing to worry about however because any settlement wont be coming out of his pocket it will be coming out of ours.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Apr 29, 2010 4:43:45 GMT -5
Is police board a "rubber stamp"? INNISFIL — Re: Charges “reasonable”; Police Board – Innisfil Journal April 13, 2010 The comments attributed to South Simcoe Police Services Board chair Patti Vanderdonk, regarding the Constable Oliver issue, should be troubling to taxpayers and council members given the “governance” and “oversight” responsibilities of the Board. This matter involved an individual’s livelihood and career, along with costing the taxpayers a bundle of money. The justification is a cavalier “win some – lose some” attitude from the Board Chair. Surely Vanderdonk and the Board can do better than this!
According to the Board’s press release, the charges laid against Constable Oliver by Chief Davis were “fair and reasonable”. There obviously were some problems which led up to this action which were deserving of attention to improve the performance situation for all concerned. While ultimately disciplinary or other action may have been required, the important issue now is not so much the lead up but the finding results which must be addressed. Supt. Tweedy’s findings in his lengthy decision should be concerning to the Board. He found the whole matter involved threats, intimidation and bias, failure to act on information, retaliation, failure to understand governing legislation, and abuse of authority by some, including the Chief. Tweedy was highly critical of this “incomplete investigation”. In addition he did acknowledge some of Oliver’s “minor” performance issues but commented on apparent instances where improvement occurred. Since performance was the whole crux of the matter, and improvements were made - why the course of action taken?
While we may never know the actual total cost of this, it is conceivable that all legal, investigative, and suspension costs together are close to $500,000, which in the end is paid by the taxpayers. The Board apparently seems unwilling to demand and provide meaningful answers other than it was “reasonable and responsible.” When I was a member of the service if I, or any other officer, had a case where a judge made this kind of finding you can be assured I would not have come out as unscathed as Chief Davis has on this one. The Chief, after all, is ultimately the one who is responsible for ensuring the quality of the investigation and evaluating the case before disciplinary action is commenced. We now have the answer on that one.
Given the tone of the press release by the Board and the comments of Chair Vanderdonk, it makes one wonder whether the board is actually in the “oversight” business or the “rubber-stamp” business. A Board press release supporting the Chief’s actions issued from the office of the Deputy Chief hardly shows the impartiality and separation of authourity which is required. We’ll likely never know much more because even though Tweedy’s report is public, the Board continues to hide behind the veil of secrecy with in-camera meetings. If the Board can justify this amount of money and resources being spent, while having this critical of a report, and apparently “rubber-stamp” the actions of those involved without consequence – what else is there to be concerned about on other matters?
Doug Lougheed
Innisfil
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Sept 30, 2010 13:01:50 GMT -5
Police chief charged
INNISFIL/BRADFORD — South Simcoe Police Chief Bruce Davis has been charged with contravening the Police Services Act in connection with the dismissal of an officer in 2008, the Journal has learned.
Thomas Bell of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirmed Monday that Davis had been served notice of the charge and an upcoming disciplinary hearing.
Bell did not release the specific charge Davis is facing, citing confidentiality stipulations in the Police Services Act.
However, sources close to the situation believe it to be discreditable conduct.
Davis did not return a telephone call to his office Monday and Deputy Chief Alan Cheesman asked that all media inquiries go through the OCPC.
The charge stems from a complaint by the South Simcoe Police union, which alleged Davis fired Const. David Oliver illegally in February 2008.
That dismissal led to Oliver being reinstated only to be charged under the Police Services Act and suspended with pay for two years pending the outcome of his disciplinary hearing. Oliver was exonerated on all counts last February following a 17-day hearing.
Testimony at the hearing last year showed Oliver was initially fired without being given due course. Police officers can only be dismissed in Ontario following a full disciplinary hearing.
During Olivers’ hearing, Davis testified that he dismissed the officer improperly because he was given bad advice by the force’s lawyer.
However, the hearing officer, retired Toronto Police Supt. Neale Tweedy, did not accept the chief’s explanation.
“The chief should have known this without the use of a lawyer,” Tweedy stated in his ruling. “This is not obscure. It is fundamental to all police and is understood by all police leaders throughout this province.”
At 15 years, Davis is the second longest serving chief in Ontario and is a past president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.
A source told the Journal that Davis sent a mass e-mail to South Simcoe officers last Thursday stating he would be the subject of an upcoming disciplinary hearing in connection with Oliver’s dismissal.
Simcoe Simcoe Police Association president Henry Geoffroy said officers are maintaining their professionalism in light of the disturbing news and “will respect the process under the Police Services Act”.
While police officers were told Davis faces a disciplinary hearing, members of the South Simcoe Police Services Board were not aware of Police Act charges against the chief when contacted by the Journal.
The civilian police services board oversees the force and has the legal right to suspend the chief with pay pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing.
Innisfil Coun. Rod Boynton, Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor Doug White and police board chairperson Patti Vanderdonk were all caught off guard by the news early this week.
“I think the chief said something was coming down the pipe, but I didn’t know about this,” Boynton said. “Lots of times I seem to be left out of the loop, there needs to be changes on that board.”
When asked if the chief should be suspended, White said he still supports Davis.
“The only comment I’m going to make is that I stand behind the chief,” White said.
Contacted Monday, Vanderdonk said while she knew an investigation was under way, she did not know of any charges.
Vanderdonk said the police services board did an internal investigation in 2007 using information provided by Deputy Chief Cheesman and decided the chief did nothing wrong in his handling of the Oliver case.
“We continue to support the chief,” she said. “I think he does a great job for us.”
Meanwhile, Oliver was placed on medical leave only two weeks after he was reinstated Feb 17. Oliver declined to comment on the chief’s police act charge or his medical leave.
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on May 6, 2011 8:22:41 GMT -5
Davis pleads guilty to neglect of duty 2011-05-04 /
South Simcoe Police chief Bruce Davis has plead guilty to neglect of duty, stemming from the wrongful termination of constable David Oliver in February 2008.
Davis appeared before an Ontario Civilian Police Commission disciplinary panel in Toronto on Thursday. He made the plea once the negotiation of a 'statement of facts' on the incident was reached between Davis's lawyer, Michael Hynes, and commission prosecutor Thomas Bell.
The sentencing hearing will continue on May 17. The panel can mandate a variety of penalties, including dismissal.
However, South Simcoe Police Services Board chair Patti Vanderdonk refuses to speculate on Davis's professional future.
"The board is unable to comment on the matter before OCCPS involving the chief, as it has not reached final resolution," she said. "The board will comment when the time is appropriate."
Davis has been South Simcoe's chief since the amalgamation of the Innisfil and Bradford forces in the mid- 1990's, making him one of the longest serving chiefs in Ontario.
However, the service has come under scrutiny over the last few years, as legal and other budgetary costs have climbed.
Davis declined comment, until the matter is resolved.
Ontario Civilian Police Commission hearing will continue on May 17 By Chris Simon
|
|
|
Post by peter on Oct 6, 2011 7:19:52 GMT -5
After all that Davis receives something like the withdrawal of 5 vacations days as punishment . The interesting thing is that when Oliver submitted a victim impart statement it was declined by the civilian police services board that oversees the force and has the legal right to suspend the chief with pay pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing.
|
|