SUSPENDED OFFICER SEEKS APPEAL OF DRUG THEFT RULING

A lawyer representing an Ottawa police officer who stole crack cocaine
for personal use has formally filed notice of motion for leave to
appeal a recent court ruling that struck down the officer's attempt to
be reinstated to the force.

The notice, filed by lawyer Kenneth Jull, states that Const. Kevin
Hall's case calls for "important judicial interpretation" regarding
the duty of a police force to accommodate officers who suffer from the
"disability of drug addiction."

The notice states that the divisional court erred in law in several
areas of its decision released this month and that "judicial
consideration and interpretation of the duty to accommodate is a
matter of significance in the areas of employment law, labour
relations and human rights throughout the province and the country."

Const. Hall, 45, has been suspended with pay since December
2005.

He was ordered dismissed in December 2006 following a police
disciplinary hearing. He admitted to taking crack cocaine from
motorists he stopped, as well as from the evidence locker.

After his dismissal was ordered, Const. Hall filed an appeal with the
Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which upheld the
original ruling a year ago.

The officer then filed an appeal with the divisional court, which
handles appeals of decisions made by administrative hearings and tribunals.

The divisional court ruled on Dec. 10 that the tribunal's decision was
reasonable.

During an interview Tuesday, Mr. Jull said people may have had a
different opinion toward the officer if he had been addicted to alcohol.

"If you're dealing with something like cocaine or marijuana or
anything that's illegal, you've got to be careful, I say, to not let
the punishment paradigm transcend the rehabilitative paradigm of
getting the guy back," he said.

Mr. Jull also noted that the court rejected his argument that public
opinion should play a minimal role, if any, in whether human rights
are respected.

"It seems to endorse public opinion being highly relevant to human
rights," something that was problematic because there was no public
opinion or research before the court in Const. Hall's case, Mr. Jull
said, adding he also believed case law went the other way.

"It doesn't say in the Human Rights Code (that) you get the rights
that the public thinks you should get. It says you're entitled to
these human rights."

According to the notice filed Tuesday, rulings on the case did not
consider the "protective nature of random drug testing as agreed to by
Hall."

The notice also states that the court's decision "has affirmed a
police tribunal's ruling that a police officer with a disability of
drug addiction can be terminated because he might be exposed to drugs
or drug paraphernalia which 'are certainly both common elements of a
police officer's world'."

"This ruling on a question of law is incorrect, as it would
effectively exempt police forces throughout the province of Ontario
from a duty to accommodate police officers as required by the Ontario
Human Rights Code," the notice states.