The oversight agency has not publicly revealed the specifics of those allegations – and they have not been provided to Durham Police Chief Paul Martin and others at the centre of the probe, who argue this has left them in an unfair position.Christopher Katsarov/The Globe and Mail
Durham Region’s police chief has turned to the courts to restore his leadership after the province appointed an overseer in light of allegations that senior officers of the suburban service engaged in cronyism and misconduct.
The Ontario Civilian Police Commission announced last month that it was appointing a former Toronto Police deputy chief to oversee operations at the Durham Regional Police Service while the commission investigates allegations that the brass had tolerated or participated in what the commission called “workplace harassment of all kinds … and potential alleged criminal conduct.”
The oversight agency has not publicly revealed the specifics of those allegations – and they have not been provided to Durham Police Chief Paul Martin and others at the centre of the probe, who argue this has left them in an unfair position.
On Monday, Chief Martin filed a notice of appeal of the commission’s order in Ontario Superior Court, arguing that procedural fairness was ignored because the oversight agency did not provide the force with any particulars about the allegations – or allow the leadership an opportunity to respond.
The commission was unable to provide immediate comment.
The chief first received notification in February that the commission was looking into complaints against him at the request of the province’s Solicitor-General.
Though the chief requested a copy of those complaints, he was denied, he said, because the commission told him it was only at a preliminary review stage. In the event that a formal investigation was initiated, it said, sufficient details would be provided.
When a formal investigation was ordered in May – after the commission announced that its preliminary findings “revealed a deep sense of mistrust in the judgment, integrity and capacity of the service’s leadership and the board’s oversight abilities” – his request for disclosure was once again denied. An administrator was appointed to oversee the service at this time.
“I don’t know what to make of it,” Chief Martin said in a phone interview with The Globe and Mail. “I’ve never had the opportunity to see what the substance of them is.”
Lawyer Peter Brauti said he brought the first allegations to the Solicitor-General in November. He now represents seven complainants.
He says it makes sense that the complaints have not yet been relayed to those they are about. The investigation, according to the commission order, relates to the chief, as well as the broader senior leadership and the police-services board.
“As investigators, I would expect them to understand that as far as the allegations go, they need to be investigated. And letting the people who are under investigation know the exact nature … before the investigation even starts wouldn’t be a wise step,” he told The Globe. “They themselves as police officers don’t do that.”
According to the notice of appeal filed Monday, the chief states the police leaders know the basis of three of the complaints, but “only by virtue of the fact that copies of the complaints were leaked to the Toronto Star, which provided copies of three of the complaints to the DRPS.”
In one of those cases, a senior officer had alleged harassment that he felt was retribution for complaining about a lack of support after attending a triple homicide. That complaint was investigated by an external police service and deemed unsubstantiated, according to the chief’s affidavit.
In the commission’s May 24 order, Linda Lamoureux, executive director of Tribunals Ontario (the provincial body that oversees the commission), said that cronyism was the most commonly cited reason for mistrust, and that certain individuals were seen as “untouchables.”
“The Commission has received credible information that suggests certain members of the Service’s leadership might have covered up, attempted to cover up, allowed, tolerated, encouraged or participated in the alleged misconduct or criminal conduct … and that they may have interfered in previous external and internal investigations,” Ms. Lamoureux wrote.
The order says the commission “does not, at this time, have sufficient information to make findings on the merits of these allegations.”
However, the order says, “it is clear that the Service’s morale suffers from a prevalent perception that advancement and preferential treatment within the Service is restricted to individuals favoured by certain members of the Service’s leadership.”
In his affidavit, Chief Martin argues that he has been “uncompromising” in ensuring officers act ethically and professionally since becoming chief in 2014.
“I’ve been part of this service 29 years in July. I’ve never had a complaint against me substantiated – in fact I’ve never had a complaint against me at all until I was chief,” he told the Globe. “I’m proud of my record. I think it speaks for itself.”
In his affidavit, the chief acknowledges the adversarial relationship between the Durham police brass and the officers’ union, particularly under the leadership of Randy Henning, who retired as Durham Regional Police Association president late last year.
The association has filed numerous complaints and grievances against senior officers, the affidavit says. “Many of these complaints have been unsubstantiated, after either independent investigation or an arbitration conducted by a neutral arbitrator. Of the approximately 53 grievances that the DRPA has pursued since I was appointed Chief, only one was upheld on arbitration. The balance were either resolved to the satisfaction of both parties or were dismissed.”
Since last year, the chief’s affidavit says, “the relationship between DRPS and DRPA has improved markedly.”
Under provincial law, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission is the watchdog body that has the power to investigate – and stop – alleged failures of police leadership. And in what it deems to be “emergency” situations, it can install new managers at police forces or the civilian boards that oversee them.
The power has been used three times in the past four years.
In 2016, the commission installed an administrator atop the Peterborough Police Services Board. That mayor-led police board had gotten into a protracted war of words with the police chief, and “the commission is now of the opinion that the continuing dysfunction of the PPSB constitutes an emergency,” the commission ruled then.
In 2018, the commission ordered the Thunder Bay Police Services Board dissolved as it put it under administration. “I am of the opinion that the Board’s repeated failures to address the concerns of the Indigenous community constitute an emergency,” that ruling said.
Police watchers say such interventions can play a key role in resolving disputes that might otherwise paralyze police.
“It provides a bit of a control against arbitrary behaviour by a municipality, a police board, or a police chief,” says Alok Mukherjee, a civilian who served as a police-board chair. He added that “some form of oversight is necessary and in our model where the law tries to maintain the political independence of policing, and an arm’s-length body like that is a valuable mechanism.”
With a report from Colin Freeze
Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.
Molly Hayes