OPC file 2024-007: In-person complaint regarding conduct of several municipal officers. Matter forwarded to Chief Officer for investigation. Investigation on-going.
OPC file 2024-006: Complaint received regarding an insufficient investigation. matter forwarded to Chief Officer. Investigation on-going.
OPC file 2024-005: On-line complaint form received. Matter deemed to be an immigration request and outside mandate of OPC.
OPC file 2024-004: Complaint received alleging an insufficient investigation in to a collision that the complainant was involved in. Matter forwarded to Chief Officer for investigation. Complaint deemed to be unsubstantiated.
OPC file 2024-003: complaint regarding municipal department for not following up on an investigation. Matter not forwarded as complaint levied outside 12 month limitation period as per Police Act.
OPC file 2024-002: complaint received to Commission in regard to conduct of a police officer. Initial investigation revealed subject police officer to be a member of RCMP. Complainant provided points of contact for Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.
OPC file 2024-001: complaint received via on-line portal. Closed as deemed to be a fictious complaint with no merit nor authenticity.
______________________________________________________________________________
OPC file 2023-018: Complaint received to the Commission from a resident alleging that police officer was negligent in his/her duty and was furthermore prejudicial in dealing with the complainant. Investigation revealed that the police officer was not prejudicial in any manner to the complainant.
The police officer was found to be in neglect of duty (under the Police Act) by failing to complete a proper police report accounting for the full interaction/investigation. A verbal warning issued with closer supervision rendered against the police officer. Further training in Trauma based interviewing/policing is being implemented at the Police Service as a whole.
OPC file 2023-017: Complaint received to the Commission in regard to the professionalism of a police officer in speaking to the complainant. Complaint forwarded to the Chief Officer to investigate. Complainant later contacted Commission and wished to withdraw complaint.
OPC file 2023-016: Complaint against a police officer as being rude during a fingerprinting process. Investigation and information relayed that the complaint was deemed unsubstantiated by the Chief Officer.
OPC file 2023-015: Complaint not forwarded as complainant was not an affected person as defined by the Police Act.
OPC file 2023 -014: Complaint received alleging neglect of duty as police officer involved in matter failed to fully investigate, communicate and update the complainant on a call for service. Police Act Investigation revealed initial investigation was complete, but officer did fail to communicate outcome and provide a timely update. Chief Officer did not find actions warranted misconduct and found complaint to be unsubstantiated. However, the police officer, junior in service, was subject to internal corrective measures and closer supervision to increase quality of service.
OPC file 2023-013: Complaint regarding neglect of duty of police officers after complainant called in a call for service on a matter, he/she witnessed. Investigation completed. No neglect of duty deemed to be present. Attending police officers completed an investigation as per duties of a police officer and stated legislation. Complaint unfounded.
OPC file 2023-012: Complaint lodged to the Commission in regard to how a municipal by-law was being enforced. Complaint was against the Chief of Police of a municipality. Matter investigated by an independent Chief of Police. Matter found to be unsubstantiated.
OPC file 2023-011: Complaint received in relation to the injury sustained to an affected person during the course of an arrest. The person had fled from police during a traffic stop, was pursued on foot, located and arrested. A serious injury resulted to the subject during the course of those events. Investigation revealed that the subject as confirmed by an independent witness, while fleeing from police, fell due to the geography. No direct action nor use of force by police officers led to the injury as sustained. Complaint deemed to be unsubstantiated.
OPC file 2023-010: Complaint regarding the arrest of an individual under the Mental Health Act. Complainant stated he/she had received an injury in an unnecessary arrest. Investigation complete. Arrest was lawful and the injury sustained had been self-inflicted. Complaint deemed to be unsubstantiated.
OPC file 2023-009: Complaint received in regard to an individual who was arrested. He/She felt excessive force was utilized and Charter Rights were not issued upon the arrest. Investigation revealed subject was lawfully arrested and no excessive force used to complete arrest. Individual was non-compliant and assaultive at the time of arrest. Investigation did reveal that Charter Rights were not issued. However, due to the chaotic scene in which the arrest was completed, Charter Rights were not relayed as multiple officers were on scene and each officer believed another officer had done so. In the Chief's decision it was stated "the involved officers unintentionally neglected their duties by not reading [the] Charter Rights". Chief issued a verbal caution and education on arrest procedures to involved officers as per section 17 of the Police Act.
OPC file 2023-008: Complaint received alleging unprofessional conduct by a police officer involved with the arrest and impaired operation processing of the complainant. Investigation completed which revealed the complaint to be unfounded.
OPC file 2023-007: Complaint received regarding Neglect of Duty as complainant was escorted away from hospital by security guards/agents of the Property. Complainant had called Police to report an assault to which attending Police Officer did not arrest nor charge the security guard/property agent. Investigation completed. Chief Officer concluded complaint was unsubstantiated. The complainant had been lawfully requested to leave the property as he/she was not abiding by entrance restrictions at the time, to which he/she refused. The complainant had been escorted out of the building proper by authorized and employed Security Guards who acted within scope of their authority. As such, it was correct in law not to proceed with an assault Information.
Review completed by the OPC as per request of the complainant. Review agreed with Chief Officer's assessment and conclusion.
OPC file 2023-006: Complaint received to Commission relaying a neglect of duty in terms of an inadequate investigation completed by involved officer. Investigation completed. Deputy Chief Officer relayed that actions may constitute a Breach of Code but due to officer's lack of experience no mal intent was present. Informal resolution achieved with Officer receiving increased supervision and further investigative training.
OPC file 2023-005: Complaint received to Commission on behalf of complainant's teenage child. Complaint centered around the arrest of the teenager at a hospital, and specifically the actions of the arresting police officers. Investigation completed. Complaint deemed to be unfounded. Chief Officer concluded that actions taken by involved police officers were warranted in order to effect arrest.
OPC file 2023-004: Complaint received to Commission claiming that police of jurisdiction were in a state of Neglect of Duty by not enforcing a Judicial order from Family Court and further not pursuing a Peace Bond. Investigation completed and found to be unsubstantiated. Chief Officer concluded that criteria to pursue a Peace Bond did not exist. The enforcement of Family Court matters is generally conducted in a civil proceeding in front of the Judge who issued the Order.
Review completed by an OPC investigator as per request of complainant. Upon reviewing all relevant information and the complaint investigation, Chief Officer's decision that complaint was unsubstantiated, upheld. No neglect of duty was present.
OPC file 2023-003: Complaint received regarding a police service's actions/neglect of duty in regard to a suicide in the community. Matter investigated by an independent police service. Chief Officer agreed with investigation that the involved police officers were not negligent in the administration of the Mental Health Act or other actions. Verbal cautions administered to the some of the involved police officer in regard to lack of note taking.
Matter presently under Review by the Office of the Police Commissioner as per request of the original complainant.
OPC file 2023-002: Complaint received regarding the arrest of the complainant. He/she claimed the arresting officer acted inappropriately by incorporating communication with an uninvolved third party. Investigation completed and the complaint found to be substantiated. Internal discipline enacted by Chief Officer.
OPC File 2023-001: Complaint regarding individual with matters involving the Trespass Act. Complaint withdrawn upon explanation given regarding Police actions taken.
__________________________________________________________________________________
OPC File 2022-019: Complaint against RCMP officer. Complainant referred to Civilian Complaints Review Commission of the RCMP.
OPC File 2022-018: Complainant alleged misconduct for being arrested for questioning in a sexual offence matter. Complaint found to be unfounded.
OPC File 2022-017: Complainant alleged unfairly served with a trespass notice. Complaint found to be unfounded.
OPC File 2022-016: Complainant alleged he and his girlfriend were falsely accused of a criminal act. Complaint founded and resolved by informal resolution (an apology by the involved officer).
OPC File 2022-015: Complaint alleging harassment of complainant’s 15 year old son. Complaint founded. Apology and in-house mentoring required.
OPC File 2022-014: Complaint alleging police service refused to take a complaint of a sexual assault. Complainant referred to police service in another province where the assault allegedly occurred.
OPC File 2022-013: Complainant alleged abuse of authority when he was charged with a domestic complaint. Dismissed as unfounded.
OPC File 2022-012: Complainant alleged police engaged in discreditable conduct in arresting his son. Dismissed as unsubstantiated. Complainant requested OPC review the decision. OPC staff met with complainant and explained decision. Complainant satisfied with outcome and review.
OPC file 2022-0011: An on-line complaint was received by a citizen on July 21, 2022 regarding a perceived lack of investigation by the Summerside Police Service (SPS). The complainant had been reported to be the subject of online harassment. This matter was reported to an officer with SPS. A subsequent investigation determined that the officer in question did not breach any section of the Code of Professional Conduct of the Police Act. As such, the complaint was deemed to be unfounded.
OPC File 2022-010 - A written complaint was filed with the Summerside Police Service(SPS) on July 13 2022. The complaint alleges that a SPS officer had engaged in discreditable conduct by laying in wait for him to operate a motor vehicle knowing he was a suspended driver rather than warning him. A subsequent investigation into the complaint determined that the officer acted appropriately as the complainant was indeed suspended and had fled from the officer across a field on an ATV when the officer tried to stop him. He was later arrested and charged with a number of traffic act violations. The Chief Officer found the complaint unfounded and dismissed it as such.
OPC File 2022-009: Complainant alleged officers abused their authority when responding to a noise complaint. Dismissed as unfounded.
OPC File 2022-008: Complaint that officer misleading in information provided to complainant. Repeated unsuccessful efforts by OPC made to reach complainant. File closed due to lack of interest by complainant.
OPCs File 2022 - 007 - A complaint was made via web submission on June 23, 2022 alleging rude, aggressive and abusive language by a member of the Charlottetown Police Service during an interaction with the complainant while dealing with a Traffic Act violation. The Chief Officer found that the manner of intervention utilized by the officer in this situation was inappropriate and unprofessional and would satisfy the description of discreditable conduct. While the complaint considered credible and founded the offending officer was no longer employed by the Charlottetown Police service which precludes the Chief taking any action against the officer. He did issue a written apology to the complainant and thanked them for bringing it to his attention.
OPC File2022-006 – On May 9, 2022 a web complaint was received alleging misconduct by RCMP members. As we have no jurisdiction over the RCMP we advised the complainant as such and provided contact information on making a complaint to Civilian Review and Complaints Commission of the RCMP
OPC Files 2022-003/004 -Two complaints were received via mail from an individual who felt two members of the Charlottetown Police Service had failed to lay charges in two incidents he was involved in. In both instances officers investigated and declined to lay charges. It was explained to the individual that the complaints, as submitted, do not allege any facts that could support a finding of a breach of the Code of Conduct. The choice by a police officer to lay a charge is a discretionary choice. The exercise of that discretion should only be interfered with where there is evidence that the officer considered improper factors. The Office of the Police Commissioner’s function is not to substitute its judgement for that of the officers unless the decision is unreasonable in the circumstances. His complaints do not allege that officers involved considered any improper factor in deciding whether to lay charges. Complaints were dismissed.
OPC File 2022-002 On April 24, 2022 an email was received from a person complaining that their brother was being harassed, unfairly treated and roughed up by the Summerside Police Service and the RCMP. While the emailed lack significant detail on date,, officers names we did considered it and determined our office lacked jurisdiction to take the complaint for two reasons. First.we have no jurisdiction over the RCMP and, second. a complaint can only be made by person directly affected by the alleged infraction of the Police Act. This was explained to the complaint with the suggestion their brother make the complaint and they were provided with contact information on making a complaint to Civilian Review and Complaints Commission of the RCMP.
OPC File 2022-001 – On February 2, 2022 a person attended our office and made a complaint that members of the Summerside Police Service (SPS) had neglected their duty by failing to investigate his complaint of theft. The complaint was forwarded to the Chief Officer for investigation and decision. This was investigated by a senior officer of the SPS who concluded the officers involved had acted reasonably and responsibly investigating the complaint. They found now grounds for a criminal charge. The acting Chief Officer agreed with this finding and dismissed the complaint.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
OPC File 2021-013: Complainant alleged police failed to investigate his call for police assistance. Complaint dismissed as unsubstantiated.
OPC File 2021-012 – A complaint was received at our office alleging a member of the Charlottetown Police Service had neglected his duty by failing to investigate a complaint of assault they had made. The complaint was forwarded to the Chief Officer who caused an investigation to be undertaken into the allegations. The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegation. The Chief Officer reviewed details of the investigation and agreed with the conclusion reached by the investigator.
OPC File 2021-011 – A complaint was received at our office via our website alleging a member of the Charlottetown Police Service had used language that humiliated them and failed to investigate a complaint they had been administered a drug in a local bar without their knowledge. The complaint was forwarded to the Chief Officer who caused an investigation to be undertaken into the allegations. The investigation found clear and convincing evidence to support the allegation of misconduct. However as the offending officer had resigned his position the Chief Officer no longer had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint under the Police Act. The complainant was advised of this and an apology offered.
OPC File 2021-010 - A complaint was received at our office via our website alleging several members of the Charlottetown Police Service had used excessive force during a wellness check involving the complainant. The complaint was forwarded to the Chief Officer who caused an investigation to be undertaken into the allegations. The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegation. The Chief Officer reviewed details of the investigation and agreed with the conclusion of the investigator.
OPC File 2021-009– A complaint was received at our office alleging discreditable behavior and conduct by several members of the Charlottetown Police Service. The complaint was forwarded to the Chief Officer who caused an investigation to be undertaken into the allegations. The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegation. The Chief Officer reviewed details of the investigation and agreed with the conclusion reached by the investigator.
OPC File 2021-008 – A complaint was received on our website complaining of the actions of a Summerside Police Service member dealing with a juvenile without a parent or guardian present on a sensitive matter. The Chief Officer of Summerside had an investigation completed which determined the contact was made in good faith and although not in compliance with policy it did not violate the Code of Professional Standards and Discipline Regulations. The Chief Officer acknowledged the matter should have been handled differently and offered an apology to the complainant and the juvenile involved on behalf of the Summerside Police Service and the member involved.
OPC File 2021 -007 A complaint was received on our website that the Summerside Police Service face book page had a number of abusive, malicious and untrue remarks about the complainant posted on it and nothing was being done about it. The matter was looked into by the Chief Officer who immediately took steps to remove the remarks, block the persons posting them and setting up a more vigorous monitoring system for their face book page. Complainant contacted by the Chief Officer and was quite satisfied with the resolution. The complainant was contacted by our office and confirmed this.
OPC File 2021-006: Complaint received to the Commission regarding the actions of police following a sudden death. Allegation was that a proper investigation was not completed. Matter determined to be unsubstantiated and no evidence garnered to believe any neglect of duty was taken.
OPC File 2021-005 – Complaint made that the Chief Officer of the Charlottetown Police Service failed in his duty to notify the complainant of their right to appeal a decision he had made to dismiss a complaint they had made as required by the Police Act. As the Chief Officer had retired he no longer fell under the jurisdiction of the Police Act. and no further action could be taken.
OPC File 2021-004 - Complaint made via web submission that an officer of the Charlottetown Police Service had been dismissive and abusive with them during a phone conversation. Complaint was referred to the Chief Officer who had it investigated by a senior officer of that service. The investigation and review by the Chief determined that the complaint was unsubstantiated and it was dismissed.
OPC File 2021-003 The original complaint was received by the Office of the Police Commissioner (OPC) via our website on March 16/2021. Complainant alleges neglect of duty by a Charlottetown Police Service (CPS) officer for failing to do a proper search of his person and denying medical attention during his arrest in June of 2020. The complaint was forwarded to the Chief Officer for investigation and review. After review the Chief Officer dismissed the complaint as it had not been made with the six month time period as required by 21(2) of the Police Act.
OPC File 2021-002 The original complaint was received by the Office of the Police Commissioner (OPC) via our website on March 14/2021. Complainant was upset over how members of the Charlottetown Police Service had dealt with a complaint concerning their daughter that resulted in charges against the daughter. As the Police Act precludes the making of a complaint by a person not directly affected by actions of the police a letter was sent by the OPC explaining this with a copy to the Chief Officer of the CPS so they would be aware of the concerns.
OPC File 2021-001 The original complaint was received via mail on March 5, 2021 alleging CPS officers participated in conduct that brought the entirety of the Charlottetown City Police’s reputation into disrepute “in violation of Section 4(1)(a)(2) of the Police Act Code of Professional Conduct and Discipline Regulations both by their refusal to allow EMS access to the complaint's injuries and by charging him with three Criminal Code offences in spite of his being in a mental health crisis at the time of the incident implying that they violated Section 4(b) of the same act in that they were oppressive and abusive to him by pursing these charges. The chief officer had an investigation undertaken by the CPS professional standards unit and, after reviewing the report and its’ findings, dismissed the complaint as unsubstantiated in evidence.
OPC File 2020-017 The original complaint was received by the Office of the Police Commissioner (OPC) via our website on Nov.25/2020. Complainant wanted to report that members of the Charlottetown Police Service (CPS) were “profiling him”. He made this complaint after being issued a traffic ticket by a CPS officer for driving while suspended. Complainant claims he was driving ok but acknowledged his licence was suspended at the time. Did not feel CPS had not right to stop him. Letter sent to complainant advising CPS officers were not profiling but simply carrying out their responsibilities and the OPC would be taking no further action on his complaint.
OPC File 2020-016 The original complaint was received by the Office of the Police Commissioner (OPC) via our website on Oct 21/2020. Complainant upset that two marked police vehicles from Kensington had arrived at their son’s place to bring him in for questioning. It explained that the OPC could not receive a complaint from a person not directly affected by the police action. It was suggested they should call the Chief of Kensington Police Service to discuss and if still not satisfied their son could make a complaint.
OPC File 2020-015– The original complaint was received by the Office of the Police Commissioner (OPC) on Sep.15/2020 and was forwarded to the Chief of Police of the Charlottetown Police Service (CPS) for investigation. The complainant had concerns about alleged abuse their authority and deceitful behavior by on officer. This incident involved the officer's response to a situation involving the supervision of a property pickup by one of the parties in a relationship that had broken up. The Chief Officer review the report on the incident and the actions of the officer involved and found they had acted appropriately. As a result the Chief Officer found no violation of the Code of Professional conduct and dismissed the complaint as unsubstantiated.
OPC File 2020-014: Complaint alleging that police failed to properly investigate a possible crime. Found to be unsubstantiated and Reviewed by the OPC and also found to be unsubstantiated.
OPC File 2020-013: Complaint alleging excessive use of force during arrest. Chief dismissed complaint. OPC conducted a review of the Chief’s decision and dismissed the complaint as unfounded.
OPC File # 2020-012 On June 26, 2020 a web complaint was received complaining of the actions of a Conservation Officer that occurred on April 24, 2019. Section 21(2) of the Police Act (PEI) requires complaints be made within 6 months after the facts on which it is based occurred. As this complaint was made more than a year after the occurrence, our office had no jurisdiction to investigate. Letter sent to complainant explaining the issue with his complaint.
OPC File # 2020-011 On May 28, 2020 a letter was received from a Summerside resident detailing dissatisfaction with Summerside Police Services (SPS) response to a complaint concerning an incident involving a neighbor’s dog that occurred in August of 2019 It was explained that the Police Act (PEI) mandates that complaints be made within 6 months of occurring. Since this occurred over 8 months ago our office had no jurisdiction to act on this. . A letter was sent to the complainant explaining this.
OPC File # 2020-010 On May 26,, 2020 a web complaint was received alleging misconduct by a member of the Summerside Police Service (SPS). He alleges that when he went to the SPS office to complain about a traffic violation he was threatened by a member of the SPS. The Police Act (PEI) requires that complaints be signed by the complainant. Due to the present public health issue with Covid – 19 the police commissioner issued a directive allowing this to be replaced with a process whereby the complaint responds to an email from his office confirming the complainant did indeed submit the complaint. In this instance the complainant did not respond to two emails and a registered letter. We have concluded our file as abandoned by the complainant.
OPC File 2020-009– The original complaint was received by the Office of the Police Commissioner (OPC) on April 30/2020 and was forwarded to the Chief of Police of the Charlottetown Police Service (CPS) for investigation. The complainant alleged a member of the CPS had been negligent in their duties and had acted in a manner likely bring discredit on the police service. The matter was investigated by the CPS professional standards unit and found to be substantiated. The Chief Officer found that the officer had breached the Code of Professional Conduct and Discipline on both counts. He imposed discipline in the reduction in rank for a six month period and a prohibition to act in a supervisory capacity during that period.
OPC File 2020-008– The original complaint was received by the Office of the Police Commissioner (OPC) on July 17/2020 and was forwarded to the Chief of Police of the Charlottetown Police Service (CPS) for investigation. The complainant alleged a member of the CPS had been negligent in their duties in that they failed to properly investigate a damage to property complaint. The Chief Officer reviewed the original complaint. He found it had been properly investigated. As a result the Chief Officer found no violation of the Code of Professional conduct and dismissed the complaint as unsubstantiated.
OPC File # 2020-007 On April 10, 2020 a web complaint was received from a gentleman who was upset over being called by Charlottetown Police about a traffic offence. Felt he was being treated as a second class citizen and had ongoing issues with authorities. Cited a recent example where he went through a red light and received a ticket. He did not feel he should have been cited as it was 2-3 in the morning and there was not traffic around. He also out lined ongoing mental health issues he had. Call the complainant and explained that there did not appear an misconduct based on the information provided. He agreed after discussion but felt the Police should have better training on how to deal with persons with mental health issues. The issue was resolved informally.
OPC File # 2020-006- On March 27, 2020 – A web complaint was received alleging misconduct by two members of the Summerside Police Services(SPS) on December 27, 2019. The complaint was forwarded to the Chief Officer of the SPS for investigation. SPS advise that in spite of efforts to contact the complainant by email, phone and attending their residence he did not make any effort to return calls or make contact with their investigator. On May 7, 2020 they did make contact and made arrangements for an interview on May 11, 2020 to take a statement providing details of the allegation. He did not attend. On June 18 the Chief Officer of theSPS wrote the complaint advising they were closing their file. Our file closed due to abandonment by the complainant.
OPC File # 2020-005 - On March 22, 2020 an email was received concerning the conduct of a PEI Conservation officer in the issuance of a traffic ticket to the complaint’s son, a minor. The complainant stated the officer stopped the minor for a traffic violation but did not issue a traffic ticket at the time. The officer did advise the minor he would be getting a ticket and recorded the name and contact info of the minor. A couple of days later he texted the minor and made arrangements to meet him and give him his violation ticket which he did, in a public place. The complainant provided a number of emails between herself and the conservation officer that align with their version of events. The complainant was contacted and it was explained that the conservation officer had full authority of the Highway Traffic Act (PEI) to issue the ticket and to do so the way they did. It was explained that based on the information available, his actions would not be considered misconduct. They were satisfied with this however concerned on the way it was issued using text to contact their son and without their knowledge. While it is felt the conservation actions were done in good faith the way was issued could leave them open for other accusations. With this in mind a message was sent to the conservation officer’s supervisor suggesting in the future tickets be issued at the time of infraction or, in the case of a minor, at their residence or the conservation officer’s office. Issue resolved informally.
OPC File # 2020-004 – On March 15, 2020 a web complaint was received that alleged misconduct by a member of the Nelson Police Department in British Columbia that occurred on January 6, 2018. The complainant felt our office would have jurisdiction as the officer that was subject of the complaint was a graduate of the Atlantic Police Academy. A letter was provided to the complainant explaining our jurisdiction was limited to police or instruction officers employed on Prince Edward Island and does not apply to those working in another province. The fact that the officer graduated from the Atlantic Police Academy is not relevant as they were not employed on PEI. They were provided contact information for the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner of BC should they wish to pursue their complaint.
OPC File 2020-003– The original complaint was received by the Office of the Police Commissioner (OPC) on May 27/2020 and was forwarded to the Chief of Police of the Charlottetown Police Service (CPS) for investigation. The complainant alleged members of the CPS had failed to properly investigation a trespass complaint he had made. The Chief Officer reviewed the original complaint. He found it involved a civil dispute over boundry lines and that the officers had followed the proper course of action. As a result the Chief Officer found no violation of the Code of Professional conduct and dismissed the complaint as unsubstantiated
OPC File # 2020-002 - On February 7, 2020 a web complaint was received alleging misconduct by a member of the RCMP. The Police Act (PEI) does not provide jurisdiction to the Office of the Police Commissioner to receive or investigate complaints against members of the RCMP. This was explained to the complainant in this instance and they were provided with contact information to the local RCMP office and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission of the RCMP.
OPC File 2020-001– The original complaint was received by the Office of the Police Commissioner (OPC) on Jan. 02/2020 and was forwarded to the Chief of Police of the Charlottetown Police Service (CPS) for investigation. The complainant alleged a member of the CPS abused his authority and deceitful behavior. This incident involved the arrest and incarceration of an individual for intoxication The CPS investigation concluded the officer involved had valid reasons for the arrest however did fail to advise the complainant of his charter rights at the time of his arrest or upon his release when sober. The Chief Officer agreed the arrest was appropriate however found that while the level of intoxication may preclude the reading of his rights at the time of arrest they should have been provided upon his release. As a result the Chief Officer found no violation of the Code of Professional conduct and dismissed the complaint as unsubstantiated. He did provide guidance to the officer involved on Charter requirements.
____________________________________________________________________________________
OPC File 2019-010- Complaint received against several members of a municipal police agency regarding a lack of investigation and professionalism. An outside police agency conducted an investigation. All allegations determined to be unsubstantiated.
OPC File 2019-009- Complaint received against a municipal police officer who had made a request for a medical review of the complainant's driving ability. This was due to the complainant being involved in a near pedestrian/vehicle collision. Investigation revealed complaint to be unsubstantiated.
OPC File# 2019-008 - On August 11, 2019 an online complaint was received alleging that the Chief of the Charlottetown Police Service breached the Code of Conduct by not laying charges of defamatory libel. The alleged libel occurred during the spring of 2019. The story in question was removed from the website shortly after the publisher received notice of the allegation.
The Commissioner found that the complaint did not allege any facts that could support a finding of a breach of the Code of Conduct. The choice by a police officer to lay a charge is a discretionary choice. Reviewing authorities should only interfere with that choice if there is evidence that improper factors were considered (R v Beaudry (2007) SCC). The complaint did not allege any improper factors and therefore the Commissioner declined to proceed with an investigation.
The Complainant made several further submissions regarding this matter. On April 30th, 2020 he made an application for judicial review of the Commission's decision in this matter which had not been issued as of that date. The Commission's decision was issued on June 11, 2020.
NB - The Commission's normal practice is not to release full decisions. Its view is that releasing summaries promotes transparency regarding policing but still protects the privacy of complainants. However, the decision in this matter is available for inspection at the Court Registry. There is also a public interest in judicial review of the Commission's proceedings. The documents in support of the decision are available for inspection at the Commission's offices upon appointment.
OPC File# 2019-007 - On May 28, 2019 an online complaint was received. Complainant alleged that during a traffic interaction and subsequent investigation on April 4, 2019 they found the conduct of a member of the Charlottetown Police Service disrespectful, loud and rude.
Section 23 subsection (1)(b) of the Police Act states that the complaint must be signed by the complainant. Attempts were made by the Charlottetown Police Services and our office to meet with the complaint to give them an opportunity to provide a signed complaint and statement of events. The complainant failed to do this. Without a signed complaint we could take no further action and subsequently our file was concluded on October 24, 2019 as unsubstantiated.
OPC File# 2019-006 – On May 28, 2019 an online complaint was received. Complainant alleged that during a traffic interaction on April 4, 2019 they felt threatened and harassed by a member of the Charlottetown Police Services.
Section 23 subsection (1)(b) of the Police Act states that the complaint must be signed by the complainant. Attempts were made by the Charlottetown Police Services and our office to meet with the complaint to give them an opportunity to provide a signed complaint and statement of events. The complainant failed to do this. Without a signed complaint we could take no further action and subsequently our file was concluded on October 24, 2019 as unsubstantiated.
OPC File# 2019-005 - On May 28, 2019 an online complaint was received. Complaint alleged that during a phone call from a Charlottetown Police member on April 4, 2019 they found the constable to be rude, intimidating, and persistent.
Section 23 subsection (1)(b) of the Police Act states that the complaint must be signed by the complainant. Attempts were made by the Charlottetown Police Services and our office to meet with the complaint to give them an opportunity to provide a signed complaint and statement of events. The complainant failed to do this. Without a signed complaint we could take no further action and subsequently our file was concluded on October 24, 2019 as unsubstantiated.
The role of the Police Commissioner is not to determine whether a police service's investigatory decisions are right or wrong. Our role is to determine whether or not the conduct in question violates the Code of Professional Conduct and Discipline Regulations. A review of the explanation provided by the Chief of Charlottetown Police Services and the investigation undertaken by them was completed by our office. We found no evidence of neglect of duty or unprofessional behavior by members of the CPS and no violation of the Code of Professional Conduct and Discipline Regulations.
OPC File 2019-001,002,003- 3 complaints from the same individual alleging non specific actions against a municipal police agency. All resulted in no action nor further investigation.