in the matter of the police act, r.s.o. 1970, chapter …

--

-

June 4 1975

~

- (

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE ACT RSO 1970 CHAPTER 351 AS RE-ENACTED BYTHE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 OF THE POLICE AJ1ENDMENT ACT 1972 CHAPTER 103

~

AJ~DIN THE MATTIR OF lU~ ARBITRATION_ --

o

BETWEEN THE BOARD OF CO~lliISSIONERSOF POLICE FOR THE TOWNSHIPOF SARNIA (hereinaftercalled the Commission)

AND THE SAiU~IATOWNSHIP POLICEASSOCIATION (hereinaftercalled the Association)

ARBITRATOR Kenneth P Swan

APPEAf1NCES

For tbe Commission Mr Hugh Garrett Counsel AA

Mr Kenneth James Reeve- Mr Richard Chowen Secretary

~

For the Associat~on Mr Donald W Stannard SpokesmanMr Jack Willis President

Nr Ken Sauve SecretaryMr Greg Sharpe Treasurer ~ 0

- 2 shy ~

(

AWARD

At the request of the Association and pursuant to the

provisions of-Section 32 of thePolice Act RSO 1970 c 351

as re-enacted by the provisions of Section 2 of the Police Amendshy

ment Act 1972 S 0 1972 c 103 the undersigned was-designatedr

on April ~41915by the Honourable John T Clement QC Acting~

Solicitor General to hear and determine all matters in dispute

between the Association and the Commission concerning the terms of

( an agreement between the parties which would be effective from

January 1 1975 to December 31 1975

The hearing was conducted in Sarnia Ontario on Thursday

May 8 1975 At the commencement of the proceedings therepresenta

tives of the parties agreed that the appointment of the arbitrator~

was in accordance with the Police Act and that I had jurisdiction

to deal with the issues in dispute between the partiessubject to

one submission by the Commission going to jurisdiction

That submission concerns Section 32(1) of the Police Act

which provides-

Where after bargaining under section 29=thecouncil of the municipality or where there isa board the board or the members of the policeforce orwhere there is a bargaining committeethe ba~gaining committee is satisfied that an

agreement cannot be reached it may by notice ~nwriting to the Solicitor General and to the other

party require all matters in dispute to bereferred to an arbitrator designated by the Solicishytor General

Mr Garrett on behalf of the Commission argued that as the notice

in writing provided in section 32(1) was delivered to the Acting

Solicitor General late in March 1975 and as the parties had with

( the consent of the Association met subsequent to that notice on

( - 3 shy ~ ~

two separate occasions April 9 and April 24 1975 the As~ociation

could not have been satisfied that an agreement cannot be reached

as required by the Act at the time of sending the notice to the

Acting Solicitor General

Assuming although I have some doubt that I-9lll entitled

sa to ass~~ that an arbitrator may look behind his appointment by -

the Solicitor General I do not think that the circumstances of -

( this case in any way jeopardize the jurisdiction of an arbitrator

to proceed to hear and determine the matters in dispute between

the parties There may be occasions on which notice by a party

under section 32 may be given in bad faith and it maybe (although

I have some doubt) that such circumstancesmight nullify the appoint

ment of an arbitrator by the Solicitor General This however is

r not such a case For a party which has given notice that it wishes

to proceed to arbitration to continue nevertheless to ne90tiate witt

the other party in an attempt to remove the obstacles to agreement

which made arbitration necessary in the first place is more consisshy

tent with good collective bargaining practice and good faitht~an

i~ is with any allegation of bad faith I did not understand Mr shy -

Garrett to ha~e alleged bad faith on the part of the Association in

any event and I ~ therefore of the opinion which I expres~ed

orally at the hearing that my jurisdiction is unhinderedby the- ~

fact that negotiations have continued following my appointment

The present arbitration deals with two separate agreement

made with the Commission one by the Association acting on behalf

of the police officers in the Township and the other by the

Association acting on behalf of the civilian employee of the Townshy

ship police department In each case the only matter in dispute

) ~- 4 shy

between the parties is the clause of the respective agreements

dealing with salaries As the evidence presented at the hearing

dealt quite d~fferently with the two agreements I shall treat

them separately in this award0

~

- Police Officers Agreementi

The agreement concerning the terms and conditions of

( employment of police officers in the TO~lShip is dated May 30

1974 and is by its terms in effect from January 1 1974 until

December 31 1975 except for clause 9(a) of the agreementr which

expired December 31 1974 Clause 9(a) deals with salaries and

the issue before the arbitration board is the terms of -a new

clause 9a) to be in effect from January 1 1975 to December 31~

1975

The submission of the Association was that the new salary

scale should incorporate an increase of 25 over the 1974 salary

scale but it soon became clear that the evidence of settl~ents in

police forces in the surrounding area could not support an ~ncrease-

opo this scale and that the real issue between the p~ties was the

question of parity with the City of Sarnia Police Department For

some time at least since the award of Mr George SP Fergu$on Q

dated December 21 1973 (the last time these same parties-went to-

arbitration) police officers in Sarnia Township have enjoyed rough

parity with police officers of equal rank in the City of Sarnia

In his award Mr Fe~ said

In dealing with the question of salaries one mustgive considerable weight to salaries being paid inareas immediately adjoining the toVllshipof Sarnia

and I respectfully adopt this finding a$ a general principle

- ~ shy~

although it is not conclusive of the parity issue I note also

thatwith the greatest respect to the ~houghtful and thorough

argument of Mr~ Stannard I am unable to see in the evidence

presented by the Association any reason to increase salaries in

Sarnia Township subst~~tially above those which haye ~een bargained

for and agree~ by police officers in the immediate vicinity

The Commission on ~~e other hand argued that the

principle of parity was inappropriateand presented evidence aimed

at establishing three reasons why the Sarnia Township salaries

ought not to be as high as those paid in the City of Sarnia

1 Without disparaging the sincerity and devotion ofthepolice officers in Sarnia Township theCommission argued that they were not as wellqualified as police officers of similar rankandexperience in the City of Sarnia

- 2 In the Commissions submission the job of policingthe area in Sarnia Township for which Associationmembers are responsible is not comparable to policework in the City of Sarnia

3 The best comparisions for Sarnia Township salaziesare the small police forces in the same generalarea not including the City of Sarnia~

I ~ In support of the first of these propositions Mr

Garrett called as a witness Staff SuperintendentDonald MacDona~d-

of the Sarnia -Police Department the officer in charge of administr

tion and services with particular responsibility for training

Chief of Police Murray Miller of Sarnia Township was also~caLled as

a witness to provide information about the Township police for

comparison with the information provided about the City police~

Staff Superintendent MacDonald outlined the program of training

assessment and selection used to ensure efficiency in the Sarnia

Police Department The program described was an impressive

efficient operation involving both local training and attendance

- -

- 6 - -

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

( at outside courses It is a program of which the SarniaPolice

Department can justly be proud and Chief Miller was quick to

admit that no such program existed within the Township police

force Nevertheless I am unable to find this argument persuasive

in dealing with the parity ~ssue ~

- The~Township force consists besides Chief Miller of

one Sergeant and six constables A force of that size could not

possibly mount a training program of the sort described by Staff

Superintendent MacDonald and has no need for a careful assessment

and selection program like that used in Sarnia to handle a much(

larger body of officers in an efficient way This in no way

reflects upon the worth and value of the individual police officersf

in the Township Chief Millers evidence was that basic training

at the Ontario Police College had been provided to the extent

possible to members of the force and that the obstacles in the way

of further training were entirely administrative As well courses

designed to produce specialized expertise are unnecessary in a

township forcesimply because specialized services such as- - -

~reathalizer testing are available from the City of $arnia police

There is no doubt that as a force the City of Samla Police Depa~

~ent isbetter organized and better trained than is the Township

Police DeparL~ent I cannot find however on the evidence before

me th~~ this reflects in any way upon the ability efficienCy or

worth of any individual member of the Township force

As to the second reason advanced by the Commission for

denying parity Mr Richard Chowen Secretary of the Board of

Commissioners of Police gave evidence concerning the nature of

the job of policing that area of the Township patrolled by

-- --- -

I I

- 7 - )

Association members Not all of the Townships area is patrolled

by the Township Police The area which is patrolled borders on

the City of Sarnia itself and consists of a strip of residential

development running along the boundary of the city and then

stretching along the shore of Lake Huron The remainder of the

Township isupatrclled by the Ontario provincial Polica o ~

The police area is largely residential with some small

industrial development and some coromercialdevelopment including

(

two shopping plazas The population of the area is approximately

7500 with some increase during the summer months due to seasonaL

residence The populatio~ of the area is growingc and major sub-

divisions of several hundred lots each are presently bein~ developed~

There are no hotels in the area and only one licenced premises a

golr course Much of the area is composed of quiet residential

neighbourhoods I but thereis one district an old summercottage

area now being re-developedi which presents a more serious policing

probl~m with high crime rates and problems with alcohol and narcotics

Once again I am unable to find the evidence pres~nted to

me conclusive on the issue of parity It may well b~ that as a -

police force the City of Sarnia Police Department has amore

difficult policing1ob than does the Township Police Departm~nt

The evidence is equivocal on thispoint and that concltisio~ must

be drawn from evidence of such factors as the absence of licenced

establishments in the Township and the more varied neighbourhood

structure of the City Nevertheless no evidence was presented

that indicated clearly that an individual member of the Township

police was required to perform duties in any way less onerous

less demanding or less potentially dangerous than those which might

- -

- 8 - shy)

be performed by a policeman of equivalent rank in the City Indeed

there was some evidence that because of the absence of specialized

services Township policemen are often required to perform a more -

varied set of tasks than is the norm for officers assigned to

general duties inside the City including bearing the complete

responsibility for all stages of the investigation ofanycrirnes

reported to them On the state of this evidence I am not prep~ed

to find that there should be a significant difference in salary

between the Township and the City based only on the difference in

the difficulty of the job of policing the respective areas

The third argument ag~inst parity advanced by Mr Garrett

that the most appropriateindicator of the amount to be paid to the

To~mship Police is evidence of the salaries paid in police departshy

ments in small communities of similar size in the area is a point

which I find well taken However both of the two examples advancec

by him on behalf of the conunission as appropriate comparisons are

open to some question In the Town af Petralia which headvanced

as an appropriate municipality for the purposes of comparis~n the ~

1975 salary of a first-class constable is $14OSOOOas compared -

with the City of Sarnia salary for an equival~nt rank of $15250deg9

The salaries paid on that police force are however nearly the

lowest in the tri-county area of Lambton Essex and Ken~ counties

and ha~~ been consistently at or near the bottom of salaries paid

in this area for the last three years A study of the evidence

presented as part of Exhibit I makes it clear that it is not

neces~arily the rule that police forces in small communities

receive lower salaries than those in larger communities Indeed

settlements in some communities smaller than Sarnia Tmvnship in

-- --- ------ -_ ---- - -- - - --- -

- 9 - )

the tri-county area have exceeded the settlement in the City of

Sarnia this year

since Petralia is some distance away from the City of

Sarnia a better comparison would appear to be the Village of

Point Edward which is virtually surrounded by the Ci~y of Sarnia

and not far frcomSarnia Township Their settlement for 1975 gave

a first-class constable a salary of $1452200 The parties

speculated about the possibility of an adjustment to salaries in

Point Edward this year but the evidence on that point was equivoca

and I shall not take the possibility of any such adjustment into

account in this award It should be noted however that this

sett~ement was reached nearly a year ago as part of a two-year t

contract and is thus less responsive to salary shifts during 1974

and to increas~s in the cost of living during that year than would

be a more recent bargained settlementr such as that in the City of

Sarnia itself

I have thus been unable to accept as conclusive-any of

the arg~~ents against parity introduced by the Commission ~~ t4e

hearing Mr Garrett proposed that the appropriate increas~ was ~

one to offset the effect of inflation that is at about the rateshy

of increase of the cost of living This approach would how~ver

if generally adopted reduce the arbitration process to~ system

of inde=xing Collective bargaining is not merely aimed at

neutralizing inflation it also contains a substantial element of

income redistribution In my view the appropriate guideline for

the arbitrator is not the increase in the cost of living but the

increase in the level of bargained settlements in comparable

employment

- 10 shygt

In the absence of any evidence compelling me to make a

dramatic departure from the way in which salaries in this region

have been determi~ed in the past I am persuaded that the approach

taken by Mr$ George SP Ferguson QC in 1973 is still a valid

one and that considerable weight must be given to the salaries~

being paid in aTeas immediately adjoining the Township of~ Sarnia- shy

The most important of these areas of course is the City of Sarnia

itself

Having regard to all of the evidence before me I have

come to the conclusion that clause 9(a) of the agreement shall be

as follows for the period January 1 1975 to December 31 1975

9(a) Constables on the force shall receive anannual salary commencing as of January 1st 1974as follows

SergeantConstable Constable

1st Class 2nd Class

$1665000 $1515000 $1325000

Constable 3rd Class $1262500 Cons tabre Constable

4th Class 4th Class

(2nd (1st

6 months) 6 months)

$1107500 $1050000

Thistable represents an increase of roughly 165 over

the 1974 salary schedule Since all of the evidence directed to

m~ used the rank of First Class Constable as a normative exampl~

to assist in understanding salary levels and shifts in other pOlice

forces in the areaand since nothing in the evidence was directed

to any specific problems of any of the lower ranks durin~th~ courSt

of the hearing I have simply applied this increase of 165 across

the entire scale It was argued at the hearing that to take such

a course would result in a Sergeant of the Township police being

paid more than an officer of a similar rank in the City of Sarnia

Police Department and that indeed such an anomaly already existed

in the 1974 salary schedule No evidence was before me as to the

- 11 -

--

salary of a Sergeant in the City of Sarnia police force nor was

I presented with any evidence as to why a differential might have

been negotiat~d in the past Such a result might in either

extreme of the possible explanations have been achieved through

inadvertence on the one hand or in an attempt to recognize the fact

that a Sergeant in a small police force like this is r~ally theshy

t

second in command and therefore holds a more responsible position

than would a Sergeant in a larger force Having no evidence upon

which to evaluate the justness of a differential if indeed a

differential does exist I have simply applied the across-the-board

settlement of 165 to the salary of the rank of Sergeant aswe~l

This salary increase is intended to keep theSa~nia

-- Township police officers generally in the same range of salaries

as those in the City of Sarnia but ~o recognize that salaries in

the Township have lagged in the past somewhat behind City salaries

Although it has been essential in achieving that result to apply

a substantial percentage increase to last years salary scale I

note that this increase is nQt out of line with the increases

r~centlY granted to ~he civilian employees of the TOnship a g~oup

not represented by any trade union and not as far as appears from-

the evidence befor~me engaged in any bargaining relationsh~p

with the Township - - - Al though it may be obvious from the -layin which the

award is phrased I wish to make clear that the new salary scales

forming part of this award shall be retroactive to the first day

of January 1975 and that members of the force shall be entitled to

(

be paid at the new rate as from that date

gt~- 12 shy

Civilian ErnployeesV Agreement

The second matter at issue in this arbitration was the

salary for the single civilian employee of the Sarnia Township

Police Departmento That employee is covered by an agrep~ent dated~

July 4 1974 and stated by its terms to be in effect fromJanuary 1

1974 until December 31 1975 except for clause 14 ~lause 14~

which sets out the salary of the employee was in effect until

December 31 1974

The evidenc~ upon which I have to base a decision concernshy

ing the salary to be awarded to the civilian employee is much more

sparse than the evidence available to me in the first parlof -this

arbitratio1o The 1974 salcry of the civilian ernployeeVc3S$650CLOQA

Evidence of 1975 settlements for civilian employees in oiherpolice

forces indicates a range from $661200 (in the Tov11 of Tilbury) 10

$734000 (in the Village of Point Edward) among the smaller

cOITImilllitiesand $826800 for a Clerk lypist Group 4 in the City

of Sarnia

The Association submitted that this employee has a

considerable amount of personal responsibilityfor the operiEitiop shy

of the police office and for the smooth handling of dep0rtment

business and I dia not understand the Commission to object

strenuously to this characterization of the employees driti~s

The pay increases awarded to other civilian employees of the

To~mship are an appropriate guide for determining the pay increase

for the civilian employee of the Commission Although the appcoshy

priate method of calculating the average increase for those employees

was in dispute between the parties at the arbitration hearing Mr

Chowens evid~nce was that this increase was in the order of 15

I

- -

- 13 - gt

in Inost cases and ~~at the increase was paid from NoveIT~er 1974

instead of January 1975f thus increasing the effective pay

increase to individual employees Mr Chowen also noted that

higher percentage increases were given to secretarial staff at

least partly belause staffing dipoundficulties had been encountered

It is a fair inference from this that a substantial p~y increase

was required to meet the market for secretarial and clerical

personnel in the Sarnia area

( - On all the evidence before meI have concluded that a -

pay increase in the safflegeneral Jcng1 hIgheras but slightly

than that awarded to the policeofficersof the To~mship is in

order Clause 14 of the Civilian Employee Agreamp~ent shal+ therefore

read as f~llows

14 The Employee sh~llreceiVea salary of$760000 effective January 1st 1975r to

r December 31st 197511

Once again for purpos6s of clarity I wish ro point out

that this clauseis retroactive to the first day of Janucuy 1975

and that the employee is entitled to receivethe new salaryips=

from that date -

~-

fi

1-

DATED at Kingston Ontario this f day of June 1975

1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (

Arb~ i)ator) - LY~shy

- 2 shy ~

(

AWARD

At the request of the Association and pursuant to the

provisions of-Section 32 of thePolice Act RSO 1970 c 351

as re-enacted by the provisions of Section 2 of the Police Amendshy

ment Act 1972 S 0 1972 c 103 the undersigned was-designatedr

on April ~41915by the Honourable John T Clement QC Acting~

Solicitor General to hear and determine all matters in dispute

between the Association and the Commission concerning the terms of

( an agreement between the parties which would be effective from

January 1 1975 to December 31 1975

The hearing was conducted in Sarnia Ontario on Thursday

May 8 1975 At the commencement of the proceedings therepresenta

tives of the parties agreed that the appointment of the arbitrator~

was in accordance with the Police Act and that I had jurisdiction

to deal with the issues in dispute between the partiessubject to

one submission by the Commission going to jurisdiction

That submission concerns Section 32(1) of the Police Act

which provides-

Where after bargaining under section 29=thecouncil of the municipality or where there isa board the board or the members of the policeforce orwhere there is a bargaining committeethe ba~gaining committee is satisfied that an

agreement cannot be reached it may by notice ~nwriting to the Solicitor General and to the other

party require all matters in dispute to bereferred to an arbitrator designated by the Solicishytor General

Mr Garrett on behalf of the Commission argued that as the notice

in writing provided in section 32(1) was delivered to the Acting

Solicitor General late in March 1975 and as the parties had with

( the consent of the Association met subsequent to that notice on

( - 3 shy ~ ~





























) ~- 4 shy





~









1975














- ~ shy~

























- -

- 6 - -

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I





























-- --- -

I I

- 7 - )









(





















- -

- 8 - shy)





























-- --- ------ -_ ---- - -- - - --- -

- 9 - )


Sarnia this year














Sarnia itself












employment

- 10 shygt








itself






1st Class 2nd Class

$1665000 $1515000 $1325000


4th Class 4th Class

(2nd (1st

6 months) 6 months)

$1107500 $1050000













- 11 -

--







t




















(


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


( - 3 shy ~ ~





























) ~- 4 shy





~









1975














- ~ shy~

























- -

- 6 - -

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I





























-- --- -

I I

- 7 - )









(





















- -

- 8 - shy)





























-- --- ------ -_ ---- - -- - - --- -

- 9 - )


Sarnia this year














Sarnia itself












employment

- 10 shygt








itself






1st Class 2nd Class

$1665000 $1515000 $1325000


4th Class 4th Class

(2nd (1st

6 months) 6 months)

$1107500 $1050000













- 11 -

--







t




















(


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


) ~- 4 shy





~









1975














- ~ shy~

























- -

- 6 - -

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I





























-- --- -

I I

- 7 - )









(





















- -

- 8 - shy)





























-- --- ------ -_ ---- - -- - - --- -

- 9 - )


Sarnia this year














Sarnia itself












employment

- 10 shygt








itself






1st Class 2nd Class

$1665000 $1515000 $1325000


4th Class 4th Class

(2nd (1st

6 months) 6 months)

$1107500 $1050000













- 11 -

--







t




















(


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


- ~ shy~

























- -

- 6 - -

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I





























-- --- -

I I

- 7 - )









(





















- -

- 8 - shy)





























-- --- ------ -_ ---- - -- - - --- -

- 9 - )


Sarnia this year














Sarnia itself












employment

- 10 shygt








itself






1st Class 2nd Class

$1665000 $1515000 $1325000


4th Class 4th Class

(2nd (1st

6 months) 6 months)

$1107500 $1050000













- 11 -

--







t




















(


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


- -

- 6 - -

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I





























-- --- -

I I

- 7 - )









(





















- -

- 8 - shy)





























-- --- ------ -_ ---- - -- - - --- -

- 9 - )


Sarnia this year














Sarnia itself












employment

- 10 shygt








itself






1st Class 2nd Class

$1665000 $1515000 $1325000


4th Class 4th Class

(2nd (1st

6 months) 6 months)

$1107500 $1050000













- 11 -

--







t




















(


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


- 7 - )









(





















- -

- 8 - shy)





























-- --- ------ -_ ---- - -- - - --- -

- 9 - )


Sarnia this year














Sarnia itself












employment

- 10 shygt








itself






1st Class 2nd Class

$1665000 $1515000 $1325000


4th Class 4th Class

(2nd (1st

6 months) 6 months)

$1107500 $1050000













- 11 -

--







t




















(


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


- -

- 8 - shy)





























-- --- ------ -_ ---- - -- - - --- -

- 9 - )


Sarnia this year














Sarnia itself












employment

- 10 shygt








itself






1st Class 2nd Class

$1665000 $1515000 $1325000


4th Class 4th Class

(2nd (1st

6 months) 6 months)

$1107500 $1050000













- 11 -

--







t




















(


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


- 9 - )


Sarnia this year














Sarnia itself












employment

- 10 shygt








itself






1st Class 2nd Class

$1665000 $1515000 $1325000


4th Class 4th Class

(2nd (1st

6 months) 6 months)

$1107500 $1050000













- 11 -

--







t




















(


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


- 10 shygt








itself






1st Class 2nd Class

$1665000 $1515000 $1325000


4th Class 4th Class

(2nd (1st

6 months) 6 months)

$1107500 $1050000













- 11 -

--







t




















(


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


- 11 -

--







t




















(


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


gt~- 12 shy








December 31 1974









of Sarnia












I

- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


- -

- 13 - gt













read as f~llows






from that date -

~-

fi

1-


1

j

i II i - (( (~tL L( -110

) ( Ill (


in the matter of the police act, r.s.o. 1970, chapter …

Documents