Pubdate: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON) Copyright: 2008 The Ottawa Citizen Contact: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/letters.html Website: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/326 Author: Neco Cockburn Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/coke.htm (Cocaine) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?236 (Corruption - Outside U.S.) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment) 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. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin