July 19, 2011

 

 

 

 

Dear Mrs. Saxon:

 

Re: Town of Amherstburg and Linda Saxon 2010 Complaint

 

We are in receipt of the correspondence from you making a complaint against the Chief of Police Tim Berthiaume. The initial correspondence was delivered to the Board on or about March 14, 2011. The Board then forwarded that correspondence to the Office of Independent Police Review Director.

 

On April 28, 2011, the Director informed you that they did not have jurisdiction to deal with the Board who was a party to your initial complaint. In addition, the Director was of the opinion that you were attempting to circumvent the provisions of the Police Services Act which prohibits complaints by one member of the service, your husband Sergeant Saxon against another member, Chief Berthiaume.

 

The Board has now been asked to consider this complaint.

 

The factual background of the complaint is that Sergeant James Saxon commenced a disability leave in or about the year 2004. During the course of that year, he received long term disability benefits. Great West Life Insurance Company managed the disability of its benefits for the Town of Amherstburg and through it for the Amherstburg Police Services.

 

During the course of proceedings under the Ontario Human Rights Code, you obtained redacted phone messages between an individual and Great West Life concerning the status of Mr. Saxon. These phone conversations that occurred on or about January 4, 2005, form the basis of your complaint.

 

An investigation of the facts concerning the complaint consisted of a review of the redacted phone messages, and the review of notes kept by now Chief Berthiaume concerning conversations with Great West Life in relation to the redacted phone messages. The phone messages were redacted to conceal the identity of a person who was not Chief Berthiaume. The fact was confirmed by the phone conversations that Chief Berthiaume had with Great West Life that confirmed that he was not the person who had these phone conversations.

 

Based upon those facts alone, the complaint you made has no factual merit and is dismissed by the Board on that basis.

 

However, there are several other reasons that the Board has considered which justified the dismissal of your complaint.

 

The investigation reveals that you knew about these phone conversations as early as 2009. The complaint that you made was not made until 2011. The complaint was not made in a timely fashion and should be dismissed for delay.

 

The Police Services Act specifies certain conduct that would be subject to a complaint against the Chief of Police. The grounds for your complaint do not fall within any of the provisions of the Police Services Act and therefore do not constitute a complaint within the jurisdiction of this Board to consider under the Act. For that reason, your complaint is dismissed.

 

Finally, a review of the history of your several complaints reveal a pattern of collateral attacks upon previous decisions. The matters have been fully dealt with by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal has ruled against you and your husband in relation to these matters. It is evident that you continue to attempt to re-litigate these issues and have sought out any forum available to you. This course of conduct is vexatious. For this reason the Board also dismissed your complaint.

 

We remain,

 

Yours very truly,

 

AMHERSTBURG POLICE SERVICE

 

Signed John Sutton, Chair