ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (DIVISIONAL COURT) FACTUM OF THE INTERVENOR, THE

The OIPRD advised the Commissioner that pursuant to section 68(3) of the PSA, the Commissioner could “hold a hearing into the matter unless [they] are of the opinion that the misconduct is not of a serious nature”.12 The relevant section of the PSA reads as follows: If on the review of the written report the chief of police is of the opinion that there was misconduct or unsatisfactory work perform. [...] The CCLA submits that the reasons provided to the public and to the applicant must disclose the basic reasoning of the Commissioner in reaching the decision in relation to the misconduct alleged. [...] Unsubstantiated complaint 68 (2) If at the conclusion of the investigation the Independent Police Review Director is of the opinion that the complaint is unsubstantiated, he or she shall report that opinion in writing to the chief of police of the police force to which the complaint relates and the chief of police shall take no action in response to the complaint and shall notify the complainant a. [...] Matter referred to chief of police 68 (3) If at the conclusion of the investigation the Independent Police Review Director believes on reasonable grounds that the conduct of the police officer who is the subject of the complaint constitutes misconduct as defined in section 80 or unsatisfactory work performance, he or she shall refer the matter, together with the written report, to the chief of pol. [...] Informal resolution 68 (6) If on the review of the written report the chief of police is of the opinion that there was misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance but that it was not of a serious nature, the chief of police may resolve the matter informally without holding a hearing if the police officer and the complainant consent to the proposed resolution.