OCPC-INQ#15-03

ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING UNDER S. 25 OF THE

POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, AS AMENDED,
INTO THE CONDUCT OF MAYOR DARYL BENNETT, MEMBER
OF THE PETERBOROUGH LAKEFIELD POLICE SERVICES
BOARD

DECISION

Panel:

David C. Gavsie, Associate Chair

Zahra Dhanani, Member

Last of Written Penalty Submissions Received: February 20, 2015

Ontario Civilian Police Commission

250 Dundas Street West, Suite 605
Toronto, ON M7A 2T3
Tel: 416-314-3004
Fax: 416-314-0198
Website: www.ocpc.ca

Appearances:
Richard Taylor, Counsel for Daryl Bennett
Prabhu Rajan, Brian G. Whitehead and Hera Evans, Counsel for
the Ontario Civilian Police Commission
Introduction
1.

This is a decision with respect to penalty issued pursuant to

s. 25 (5) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P. 15,
as amended (the Act), following an inquiry pursuant to s.
25 (1) of the Act, into the conduct and performance of
duties of Mayor Daryl Bennett, as a member of the
Peterborough Lakefield Police Services Board (the Board).

Decision on Penalty
2.

For the reasons set out herein, pursuant to s. 25 (5) of the

Act, we order that Mayor Daryl Bennett be removed from
the Board.

Background
3.

Daryl Bennett was a member of the Board overseeing the

Peterborough Lakefield Police Service (the Service). Mr.
Bennett is also the mayor of Peterborough (Mayor
Bennett or the Mayor).

4.

As per section 25 (1) (a) of the Act, on September 4, 2012,

at an in camera meeting of its members, the Commission
decided on its own motion to investigate the conduct of
Mayor Bennett as a member of the Board. As a result of its
investigation, the Commission decided to hold a hearing
into his conduct.
2

5.

The background facts, the allegations, the evidence and the

findings resulting from the hearing into the conduct of
Mayor Bennett are set out in the Decision in the Matter of a
Hearing under s. 25 of the Police Services Act into the
conduct of Mayor Daryl Bennett, member of the
Peterborough Lakefield Police Services Board, (December
29, 2014, OCPC) (Bennett Conduct Decision).

6.

In the Bennett Conduct Decision, supra, the Panel found

Mayor Bennett guilty of all 11 specific allegations of
misconduct, thereby finding that he engaged in conduct
which discredited and compromised the integrity of the
Board or the Service, contrary to Sections 2, 5, 6, 8,
and/or 13 of the Members of Police Service Boards - Code
of Conduct, O. Reg. 421/97 (the Code of Conduct),
enacted under the Act.

7.

In the Bennett Conduct Decision, supra, the Panel ordered

the parties to provide written submissions on penalty.

Issues
8.

The issues to be decided in this decision are as follows:

1)

Does the Commission have jurisdiction to issue a

penalty?

2)

If so, what is the appropriate penalty based on

relevant sentencing factors?

Reasons and Analysis

Jurisdictional Question:
9.

Counsel for Mayor Bennett informed the Panel in his written

submission on penalty that the Board was disbanded on
3

December 31, 2014 and that Peterborough now has a

police services board separate from Lakefield called the
Peterborough Police Services Board (the PPSB). The
PPSB now oversees the Peterborough Police Service
(PPS).
10. Counsel for Mayor Bennett also advised the Panel that
Mayor Bennett is not a member of the PPSB and because of
this, counsel argued that the Commission no longer has the
jurisdiction to impose a penalty of removal, in that the
Mayor is not currently a member of a police services board.
11. We do not agree with this submission.
12. The Commission has an obligation to do what is just in the
matters that come before us. In reference to Commission
Powers, section 3.5 of the Commission Rules of Practice
(the Rules) states:
Where matters are not covered by these Rules,
the practice will be decided by the Commission as
the Commission considers just.
13. We find that it would not be just to consider evidence that
is being relied on by a party in its submissions that the
other party did not have a chance to examine and respond
to with their own evidence.
14. The Panel is tasked with deciding a penalty based on the
hearing into the conduct of Mayor Daryl Bennett that
occurred from March 5, 2013 to May 16, 2014 while Mayor
Bennett was a member of the Board
15. To ascertain penalty, the Panel can only rely on evidence
that was put on the record during the period of the hearing
into this matter.

16. The Panel held a full hearing with over 23 days of evidence,
14 witnesses, video and audio recordings and hundreds of
pages of disclosure material. The Panel prepared and
released the Bennett Conduct Decision, supra, and we are
fully equipped to make a decision on penalty based on the
evidence that was properly put before us.
17. At the point that a decision on the conduct of Mayor
Bennett was released, December 29, 2014, he was still a
member of the Board.
18. This Panel cannot address any new evidence that was
submitted as part of the penalty submissions as this would
amount to a breach of natural justice and procedural
fairness.
19. Counsel included as part of his submissions a printed page
from the PPS website listing current members of the PPSB.
This was provided to suggest Mayor Bennett is not a
member of the PPSB. This information also is not evidence
on the record and we cannot make any findings based on
this information, nor can we use it in arriving at our
Decision.
20. Indeed we have no way of integrating this information fully
into this Decision, as it has not been wholly examined. The
Commissions counsel has not had the opportunity to test
the information or to bring its own evidence in response to
this information.
21. There is nothing before us that would allow us to use this
information in a just and fair manner.
22. This penalty decision therefore can only address the
conduct of Mayor Bennett while he was still on the Board,
and apply a corresponding penalty. It is very important to
note here, that even if the Mayor is not on the PPSB
currently, pursuant to Part III of the Act, the Mayor, as
5

head of a municipal council, is entitled by law to choose to

be a member of the police services board in his or her
municipality.
23. A further point we make on this issue was raised by
Counsel for Mayor Bennett, who engaged in argumentation
about the word remove in subsection 25(5) of the Act
stating that if the PPSB no longer exists, he cannot be
removed from it. This is a very literal and narrow
approach to the wording in the Act.
24. As per the Legislation Act, 2006, S.O.2006, c.21, sch. F,
the Panel takes a more liberal and purposeful approach in
deciding this issue and imposing a penalty based on Mayor
Bennetts conduct. Section 64 (1) of the Legislation Act
states that:
An Act shall be interpreted as being remedial and
shall be given such fair, large and liberal
interpretation as best ensures the attainment
of its objects. (emphasis added)
25. The legislative purpose of
the Act is found in its
Declaration of Principles in s. 1, which provides that:
Police services shall be provided throughout
Ontario in accordance with the following
principles:

3.

The need for co-operation between

providers of police services and
communities they serve.

the
the

26. The Ontario Court of Appeal held in Browne v. Ontario

Civilian Commission on Police Services [2001] O.J. No.
6

4573 that the legislative purpose of the Act is to increase

public confidence in the provision of police services.
27. While the Mayor may or may not be sitting on the current
police services board in Peterborough, as the head of a
municipal council he is entitled to do so if he chooses. Also,
while the new board is called something different it still
serves the same very important purpose: to act as the
civilian governance body of the police service in
Peterborough.
28. In our role of providing civilian oversight of policing in the
Province, the Commission must maintain the public
confidence in the provision of police services.
29. To that end we find that it is incumbent on us to impose a
penalty, after we have held a year long, 23 day inquiry into
the conduct of Mayor Bennett. The public has an interest in
a resolution in this case, particularly because of
the
importance of this matter, and also because of the lengthy
hearing, the immense public resources invested and the
Mayors conduct which was found to be quite
unsatisfactory.
30. In Ontario, police services and police service boards (and
its members) are ultimately accountable to the public
through the Commission. The imposition of a penalty in this
case is not solely a punitive act but an obligation of the
Commission to protect the public interest.
31. It is a power that allows the Commission to prevent further
harm after a member of a police services board has been
found guilty of misconduct. To thwart this power would be
to paralyze the Commission from realizing its role to ensure
policing is conducted in communities in a safe and
appropriate manner.
Appropriate oversight by police
services civilian boards is a critical element in ensuring that
takes place.
7

32. To be able to respond to and curtail the inappropriate

conduct of a board member is critical to the Commissions
role as an oversight body. It will also ensure a high
standard of policing and police oversight in Ontario.
33. A member of the board must conduct him or herself in a
satisfactory manner. If he or she does not, that person
must not be allowed to continue without consequence.
34. The public requires a resolution based on this Panels
finding that Mayor Bennett behaved in ways that discredit
the Service and the Board.
35. Section 25.5 of the Act states that:
If the Commission concludes, after a hearing, that
a member of a board is guilty of misconduct or is
not performing or is incapable of performing the
duties of his or her position in a satisfactory
manner, it may remove or suspend the member.
36. Our penalty decision is based on the evidence that was
before us during the hearing, which concluded in a finding
that while on the Board, Mayor Bennett committed serious
misconduct.
37. There is nothing in the legislation that states that the
Commission cannot make a penalty finding after a finding
of misconduct, if during the time between the conduct
decision and the penalty decision there has been a change
of status of the subject board member. In this regard, we
note s. 90 of the Act which deals with police officers who
resign or retire before a complaint against them is finally
disposed of. No further action can be taken, unless such
person becomes a member again of a police service within
five years, in which case, the complaints process resumes.
8

There is no such limiting provision for members of police

service boards.
38. We agree with Commission counsels submission that to
interpret the legislation in a way that would allow the
Mayor to avoid sanction would likely have the effect of
decreasing public confidence in policing.
39. We also agree with Commission counsels submission that
the legislative provisions must be interpreted within the
practical context of the matter.
40. The context of this matter is that there are constant
changes of membership in police service boards due to
individual members choices, municipal and provincial
elections and long-term political negotiations. Within that
context, if the Commission was unable to render a decision
every time there was a political shift, the Commission
would be rendered powerless in many instances.
41. From the investigation stage to the release of the Bennett
Conduct Decision, supra, there has been a lapse of close to
three years. There are bound to be changes as a result of
the lengthy time it has taken to move through this process,
including the lengthy year long hearing.
42. If we were to apply a narrow interpretation in this matter,
any investigation of a police services board member a year
or two prior to an election, could be thwarted at the final
stages if there was a change in status during that time. We
find that that would be completely contrary to the public
interest goals of the Act.
43. Counsel for Mayor Bennett relies on Donald MacNeil,
Member of the Barrie Police Services Board, (February 10,
2012, OCPC), where it was held that the Commission
lacked jurisdiction to continue a hearing into a board
9

members conduct under s.25(1) because

member ceased to be a member of the board.

the

board

44. There are significant distinctions between the two cases,

including:
a)

In MacNeil, supra, the hearing of evidence never

even began. In this case there have been 23
hearing days, closing submissions received in
writing and a decision on conduct already issued.

b)

In MacNeil, supra, the hearing was delayed by one

month with the knowledge that Donald MacNiel
would cease to be a board member. In the case
before us it is still not evidence properly before us
that Mayor Bennett is no longer a member of the
Board.

c)

In MacNeil, supra, there was a motion brought

and heard on the issue of jurisdiction. No such
motion was brought or heard in this case.

d)

In MacNeil, supra, there was no finding as to the

conduct of the board member. In the case before
us, a lengthy 75 page decision on the Mayors
conduct was released in December, 2014 when he
was a member of the Board: see Bennett Conduct
Decision, supra.

e)

In MacNeil, supra, once Donald MacNeil ceased to

be a board member, he was not in a position
where he had the legislated right to sit on the
police services board if he wanted to. In the case
before us, even if Mayor Bennett is not on the
current police services board, as Mayor he could
choose to do so (but for this pending decision).
This right would be extended for as long as he
continued to be the Mayor of Peterborough.
10

45. Police services boards in Ontario are the cornerstone for

civilian oversight of policing, ensuring police are
accountable to the public and to the communities they
serve. Members of these boards must also be accountable
to the public and it is incumbent on the Commission to
make decisions that uphold the primacy of this
accountability. This indeed is the whole purpose behind s.
25 as it relates to police service board members.
46. Reviewing the conduct of a board member is critical to the
Commissions role as an oversight body and in ensuring a
high standard of policing and police oversight in Ontario.
47. It is clear that when interpreting provisions of the Act, the
courts have placed significant weight on the legislations
public interest goals and the importance of increasing
public confidence in policing: see Peel (Regional
Municipality)
Police
v.
Ontario
(Director,
Special
Investigation Unit) [2012] OJ No. 2008 (CA) and Wood v.
Schaeffer, 2013 SCC 71.
48. The Commissions jurisdiction under s. 25 must include the
ability to impose a penalty where there has been a full
inquiry and hearing on conduct resulting in a disposition of
guilt. Frustrating the authority to do so would impede the
public interest purpose of the Act and undermine the
publics confidence in policing.
49. A member of a police services board must conduct him or
herself in a satisfactory manner. If he or she does not,
consequences must arise. It is with this emphasis that we
make our decision on the question of jurisdiction.
50. We find that the Commission continues to have jurisdiction
to complete the s. 25 proceeding in this case and therefore
to impose a penalty on Mayor Bennett based on our finding
that he is guilty of 11 specific counts of misconduct while
sitting on the Board.
11

Application of Sentencing Factors

51. Counsel for the Commission submitted that removal from
the Board was the appropriate penalty in this case.
52. Counsel for the Mayor argued that Mayor Bennett has been
required to be off the Board since September 17, 2012 by
virtue of subsection 14(1) of the Code of Conduct. He
asserted that this suspension and the resulting
consequences represents a more than sufficient penalty
and that no other penalty should be imposed.
53. The Inquiry into the Conduct and Performance of Duties of
Norman Gardner of the Toronto Police Services Board
(March 1, 2004, OCCPS, hereinafter Gardner), provides
guidance as the factors that are relevant to an assessment
of the appropriate disposition under ss. 25 (5) of the Act
were considered. They are: public interest, seriousness of
the misconduct, damage to the reputation of the Board and
the Service, recognition of seriousness of misconduct,
ability to reform or rehabilitate, general deterrence,
employment history and personal circumstances.
54. Our decision on penalty is primarily based in the
indisputable importance of the need for police service
board members to behave in a manner that increases or at
a minimum maintains public confidence in policing. The role
of police service board members cannot be understated.
There is a very high public interest element in this penalty
decision.
55. In his June 2012 post-G20 report (Morden Report),
Justice Morden succinctly describes the importance of the
role of police services boards and civilian oversight of
police. He states:

12

Civilian oversight of our police is essential. It acts

as a check and balance against the legal powers
society has given the police to enforce the law.
Effective oversight of the police is the way that the
public and police remain partners in the
preservation of public safety. For the police to be
effective in our communities, the public must have
respect for those that perform the policing
function. The governance and accountability that
civilian
oversight
creates
work
in
tandem...Therefore, effective fulfillment of the
governance role that police boards play ensures
that decisions made and actions taken by police
are reflective of the communitys values.
56. The Morden Report prescribes a new era in policing that
underscores the ever critical role that police service boards
play in policing. The members of these boards must be
worthy and fitting of such an important and necessary
position.
57. The Panel has in detail examined the behaviour of Mayor
Bennett in the Bennett Conduct Decision, supra. For that
reason we will not review all of the facts, allegations and
findings in this decision.
58. Based on that conduct and a review of all the Commission
cases into the conduct of police services board member
conduct, we find the conduct demonstrated in this case to
be completely unacceptable and unsatisfactory: see:
Gardner, supra; A Hearing Under Section 25 of the Police
Services Act into the Conduct and Performance of Duties of
the Members of the Wallaceburg Police Services Board
(June 19, 1996, OCCPS, hereinafter Wallaceburg);
Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and Arnold
Minors (December 19, 1994, OCCPS,hereinafter Minors);
and Matter of an Inquiry under s. 25 (1) of the Act Into
the Conduct and Performace of Duties of Greg Oliver, A
13

Member of the Stirling-Rawdon Police Services Board

(October 7, 2014, OCPC, hereinafter Oliver).
59. As per the Bennett Conduct Decision, supra, this Panel has
found that Mayor Bennetts behaviour while on the Board
was plain and simply, unsatisfactory. His conduct
undermined the confidence of his colleagues, delegitimized
those he governed in the Service and caused concern to
the community he was responsible to. His actions quite
specifically diminished the publics confidence in the Board,
the Service and in this case most notably the Chief.
60. Mayor Bennett does not seem to agree to or feel the need
to abide by his responsibilities and obligations as a Board
member. Mayor Bennett testified and demonstrated a belief
that he should be able to say whatever he wants, whenever
he wants and to whomever he wants.
61. The issues with Mayor Bennetts conduct on the Board were
chronic and pervasive. The Mayors conduct was so
extreme and so far off any range of acceptable member
conduct that we find he has exhausted the possibility of
ever being an effective member of the Board.
62. Mayor Bennetts reprehensible behaviour was evidenced in
many ways, including:
a)

threatening other Board members;

b)

not voicing his concerns at Board meetings, in

some instances even voting in favor of actions
that he would later publicly criticize the Chief or
the Board for undertaking;

c)

voicing his concerns about Board matters to the

media before addressing them responsibly with
the Board;
14

d)

making allegations against the Chair of the Board

that were completely unsubstantiated by factual
evidence;

e)

making false statements to the Minister

Community Safety and Correctional Services;

f)

making public declarations about the Chiefs and

the Services negative intentions and acts to spin
statistics on crime.

g)

continually going behind the interests of his

colleagues on the Board;

h)

expressing opinions to the public and media on

policing issues without expressly stating that he
was voicing his own personal opinion; and

i)

expressing himself in a manner that

aggressive,
confrontational,
attacking
offensive.

of

was
and

63. Mayor Bennett's offensive behaviour was acute, unabating

and consistent. The conduct before us is of the most
serious nature.
64. Mayor Bennetts comments in public directly undermined
the Board. To consciously sabotage the efforts of the Board
in public is contrary to any conduct expected of Board
members particularly the conduct obligations explicitly
articulated in the Code of Conduct.
65. We found his behaviour to demonstrate a blatant disregard
for the effective and efficient governance of policing and a
complete lack of respect for his colleagues on the Board.
His conduct was counter-productive to the goals of the
Board, the Code of Conduct and the Act.
15

66. The duties and responsibilities of police service boards

which oversee municipal or police services are clearly
articulated in the Act. Section 31 (1) states:
A board is responsible for the provision of adequate and
effective police services in the municipality and shall,
(a)

appoint the members of the municipal police

force;

(b)

generally determine, after consultation with the

chief of police, objectives and priorities with
respect to police services in the municipality;

(c)

establish policies for the effective management of

the police force;

(d)

recruit and appoint the chief of police and any

deputy chief of police, and annually determine
their remuneration and working conditions, taking
their submissions into account;

(e)

direct the chief of police and monitor his or her

performance;

(f)

establish policies respecting the disclosure by

chiefs of police of personal information about
individuals;

(g)

receive regular reports from the chief of police on

disclosures and decisions made under section 49
(secondary activities);

(h)

establish
guidelines
with
respect
to
the
indemnification of members of the police force for
legal costs under section 50;

16

(i)

establish guidelines for dealing with complaints

under Part V, subject to subsection (1.1);

(j)

review the chief of polices administration of the

complaints system under Part V and receive
regular reports from the chief of police on his or
her administration of the complaints system.

67. Based on all of the examples of disrespectful conduct that

are evidenced in the record and in our findings, we do not
believe that Mayor Bennett would ever be able to fulfill the
mandate of a Board member, in particular as long as he
continued to be the Mayor of Peterborough.
68. Mr. Camille Parent, the community member who originally
complained to the Commission about Mayor Bennetts
conduct, stated several times in his testimony that the
Service was under constant attack by the Mayor.
69. In reference to the media articles that had been disclosed
into evidence at the hearing, Mr. Parent stated:
The Police Chief couldnt say anything without the
Mayor casting a shadow of a doubt on everything
that he said. The Mayors office was continuously
attacking the Chair. Again these comments should
have been done behind closed doors, closed
session, because thats when you can talk with
lots of emotion. We all have said something
emotionally but it should not get out to the public.
People were coming into my store saying can you
believe this? I recently read an article, and the
negativity is still happening.
70. We cannot allow similar consequences again: as a result of
Mayor Bennetts conduct there was damage to the Service,
to Service staff, to other Board members and to the
community as a whole. This is intolerable and cannot be
17

allowed. The penalty in this case must address specific

deterrence in that Mayor Bennett should not be allowed to
conduct himself in this way as a member of the Board. The
penalty must also address general deterrence, this kind of
conduct cannot be accepted from any police services board
member, and that should be clear as a result of this
decision on penalty.
71. Furthermore, Mayor Bennett has not expressed any
remorse about his conduct. At the hearing he was asked
specifically if he was apologetic about any of his behavior.
He said no. We are convinced that should Mayor Bennett
be allowed to be on a police services board again, nothing
would change. His conduct would be based on his strongly
held belief that, as a Mayor, he can do and say whatever
he wants wherever he wants.
72. It was this Panels finding that Mayor Bennett had a serious
misunderstanding of the Act and of the role of police
service board members. In the Bennett Conduct Decision,
supra, we found Mayor Bennetts behaviour to escalate
conflicts both within the Board and in the community, to
sabotage efforts of the Service and the Board and to create
upset with various stakeholders.
73. His conduct was deliberate, conscious and unrepentant.
There is no remedial measure for this kind of conduct. If
someone does not see a problem with his behaviour he is
not at all likely to change that behaviour. There is no
evidence before us that would suggest Mayor Bennett is
willing to alter his behaviour.
74. Mayor Bennetts conduct was far below the standard of
appropriate conduct and there is an absence of mitigating
factors to provide any reason to allow him to ever serve on
the Board or any other police services board again.

18

75. Counsel for Mayor Bennett submitted that everything the

Mayor did was in order to fulfill his role as a mayor. While
we do find that the Mayor takes his role as a mayor very
seriously, this does not provide any acceptable explanation
to his ceaseless undignified attacks of the Board, the
Service and the Chief.
76. Furthermore, it is not the Mayors intent that is at issue but
his conduct, which frankly put is inexcusable.
77. As a voice coming from the public, Mr. Parent stated what
he thought were the appropriate measures in this situation
quite succinctly in his testimony:
With the negativity out there I think the best thing
would have been for him to remove himself at the
early stages or to be removed from the Board.
78. We agree. For the reasons expressed herein, the Panel is of
the view that the only appropriate penalty is removal.
Decision on Penalty
79. Accordingly, pursuant to s. 25 (5) of the Act, we order that
Mayor Daryl Bennett is removed from the Board.

DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 22nd DAY OF April, 2015

David C. Gavsie
Associate Chair, OCPC

Zahra Dhanani
Member, OCPC

19