The non conformer's Canadian Weblog

March 29, 2009

No such thing as a little bit pregnant


A criminal probe of perverse OPP Chief’s Fantino’s abuse of tax payers money is in order. If things do not go the way he wants in court, he merely appeals and appeals and appeals cause it costs him nothing, and he knows the taxpayers will pay for it.

OPP chief ordered to retake witness stand Globe and Mail – ‎Nov 13, 2009‎  Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino has been ordered to go back to the witness stand and pay $20,000 in costs to two officers in whose disciplinary hearing the commissioner had been subpoenaed to testify.  Commissioner Fantino had been in the unusual position of being cross-examined about allegations that he used the internal OPP disciplinary process to wage a vendetta against a high-ranking officer. The allegations were made in the disciplinary hearing of two OPP internal affairs officers, Superintendent Ken MacDonald and Inspector Alison Jevons. Already, the legal saga has cost nearly $500,000 in public money, according to documents that Supt. MacDonald and Insp. Jevons obtained through Freedom of Information requests, said their lawyer, Julian Falconer. The bill is assumed by the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services, an OPP spokesman said. Commissioner Fantino’s cross-examination had been halted after he alleged that the adjudicator in the disciplinary case, retired judge Leonard Montgomery, was biased. But in a unanimous ruling today, three judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the commissioner’s claim. “The events in this case fall far short of the type of conduct that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias,” the judgment said. The court ordered the commissioner awarded $20,000 in legal costs for the two officers. According to testimony at the disciplinary case, Commissioner Fantino wrongly suspected Supt. MacDonald of leaking information to local municipal politicians. Mr. Falconer alleged in court filings that, as a result , the commissioner pursued a vendetta against Supt. MacDonald by charging him and Insp. Jevons in an unrelated disciplinary matter relating to their investigation of another officer’s acts in a domestic dispute.

Criminal probe of defence witness sparks new allegation Fantino abused power  TORONTO – The latest round in Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino’s fight to have an adjudicator removed from a disciplinary hearing goes before the courts Monday amid fresh allegations that the province’s top cop abused his power and acted unlawfully. 
The new allegations, contained in filings with the Ontario Court of Appeal, stem from a criminal probe into a police officer who was a defence witness at the misconduct hearing Fantino initiated against two other senior officers.The criminal investigation began in January, three months after now-retired provincial police Insp. Keith Messham inadvertently disclosed a privileged document during the discipline process. “The commissioner, in commencing a criminal investigation of (ret.) Insp. Messham, has again attempted to punish a defence witness,” according to the defence’s factum filed with Appeal Court. The document also shows the probe prompted the two other officers to complain about Fantino’s behaviour to the deputy minister of community safety and the province’s integrity commissioner.The complaint, which has not been proven, alleges Fantino “engaged in unlawful acts of reprisals against defence witnesses,” according to the factum.
The Messham probe came as a Divisional Court panel was still weighing a Fantino request to force retired justice Leonard Montgomery to step down as adjudicator in the misconduct case. In a letter to the lead investigator filed with the Appeal Court, Messham’s lawyer Scott Fenton called the probe of his client a “gross misuse” of criminal investigative power. “The decision to direct a criminal investigation against Insp. Messham (ret.) appears to be part of a broader pattern of misuse of authority by the commissioner of the OPP against current and former senior officers who the commissioner perceives are disloyal, recalcitrant or disrespectful of his authority and his particular methods of enforcing discipline,” Fenton wrote.On Monday, the Appeal Court hears yet another attempt by Fantino to have the hearings put on hold while he fights to have Montgomery removed as adjudicator.The disciplinary case arose when the high-profile commissioner charged Supt. Ken MacDonald and Insp. Alison Jevons, formerly with the provincial force’s internal standards branch, with misconduct and deceit under the Police Services Act.The two officers had reviewed how police responded to a domestic dispute involving yet another officer in 2004 and concluded proper process was not followed.Messham, who served with the provincial police force for three decades until retiring in January, found no issue with how MacDonald and Jevons had acted. Their lawyer, Julian Falconer, called him as a defence witness.Falconer had been arguing before Montgomery that Fantino was vindictive and politically motivated in charging the pair. He has previously argued Fantino tried to transfer another officer who co-operated with the defence. As a result, he expressed concern that Messham would face sanction for the inadvertent disclosure, and even won agreement from Fantino’s lawyer that none was warranted. Three months later, however, Messham found himself under criminal investigation.”It is apparent that the very concern with respect to reprisal by the commissioner against a witness has now occurred,” Falconer said in a recent letter to Fantino’s current lawyer, Tom Curry. Curry was not immediately available to comment. Fantino, who was under cross-examination by Falconer when his lawyer raised the bias accusation against Montgomery in November, wants a stay of the disciplinary proceedings while he tries to appeal two Divisional Court rulings that went against him. He insists Montgomery, who expressed concerns after Fantino changed his evidence, has shown a pattern of bias that undermines his impartiality. “Commissioner Fantino’s credibility . . . is of importance and the adjudicator expressed unwarranted conclusions about (his) credibility and conduct in the midst of his evidence,” Curry states in his factum.The commissioner will suffer “irreparable harm” if a stay is not granted, he says. For his part, Falconer wants the Appeal Court to deny a stay, arguing Fantino is seeking the hiatus for “an improper motive or purpose.””   AND WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS all still?
Next ” TORONTO – An attempt by Ontario’s top police officer to put a stop to a murky disciplinary hearing has been put on hold. An Appeal Court judge on Monday pressed the two sides to come to a deal rather than have him rule on granting a stay. Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino argues the adjudicator should be thrown off the discipline case because he is biased against him. Lower courts have ruled against Fantino and he wanted the court to halt proceedings until it decides whether to hear his appeal. Instead, the hearings will likely now be scheduled to go ahead toward the end of April. By that time, however, the Appeal Court will have decided whether it will hear Fantino’s case. The disciplinary hearing involves two senior provincial police officers Fantino accuses of misconduct and deceit. The two officers had reviewed how police responded to a domestic dispute involving another officer in 2004 and concluded proper process was not followed. However, Fantino himself has become embroiled in controversy amid defence allegations that the charges against the pair were politically motivated and vindictive. The hearings ground to a halt as Fantino argued the adjudicator he appointed to hear the case was biased and had to be removed.  In new filings with the Ontario Court of Appeal, their lawyer makes fresh claims that the blunt-speaking officer has abused his authority by initiating a criminal investigation against a defence witness.  “
 These are serious charges, likely the tip of an iceberg, a full scale investigation is needed here by an independent judicial body.. for there is not such thing as a little bit pregnant likely here too.
and what this is the same person who had lied about the main causes of  car  accidents in Ontario now as well? Most accidents are not caused by speeding but by drunk drivers rather firstly..
The police board and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner must acknowledge that there is a high threshold of public accountability for a chief of police. Any misconduct or inappropriate behaviour resulting in the removal of a chief should have an expectation of full disclosure. see also
  police cartoons

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: