Hello RS,
I'd like to share the following news with you that I have just received earlier today from the OPCC:
Quote:
Dear Mayor Stewart:
Re: Service or Policy Complaint #2019-004 (LEUNG)
On June 25, 2019, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC) received a copy of your concluding letter to Mr. Rick Leung, dated June 25, 2019. Your letter detailed the steps taken with respect to the complaint submitted by Mr. Leung and provided reasons for your decision.
As well, you advised Mr. Leung of his right to request a review of the matter by our office if he disagreed with your decision. On July 12, 2019, the OPCC received a letter from Mr. Leung disagreeing with some of the Vancouver Police Board’s conclusions. According to Mr. Leung, he appreciated the preparation of supplemental in-service training by the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), but is still concerned about the fairness of the Notice and Order (N&O) process and mechanism. Mr. Leung also proposed that amendments to the relevant legislation should be made. Mr. Leung’s materials can be made available to you upon request.
The OPCC recognizes the need to ensure vehicles are safe to operate on our highways, and is aware of public concerns in relation to the VPD’s enforcement of the traffic rules and regulations with regard to those safety needs.
Having had the opportunity to examine the Board’s decision, this office recommends, pursuant to section 173 of the Police Act, that the Board consider a further course of action as follows:
1) To assess whether enforcement action taken by the Vancouver Police Department is arbitrary or is consistent with the relevant lawful authorities and department policies. It is recommended that a sample of Notice and Orders issued by the VPD be audited to determine the number of vehicles that were found to be in compliance with the law. This sample could include issues related to wheel alignment/camber and exhaust systems.
2) The audit should assess VPD compliance with departmental policy related to the driver’s choice of which Designated Inspection Facility (DIF) the driver chooses to use (VPD Regulations and Procedures Manual, s. 1.10.13(viii) – Traffic Violations – Unsafe Vehicles)
3) Determine whether any changes are required to VPD policy following this audit.
The OPCC takes no position on legislative amendments as that is not part of our mandate.
Andrea Spindler
Deputy Police Complaint Commissioner
Copy: Chief Constable Adam Palmer, VPD/PSS
|
The contents of the letter are very slightly reformatted to make it easier to read here on the forum.
As I have mentioned at the time when my review request was sent to the OPCC, my expectations of anything useful coming out of the request were very low. So when the OPCC email came in, I was very pleasantly surprised to see that at least some aspects of my review request was granted. It does not address all the concerns that I have in either my original complaint, or in the subsequent review request; it also doesn't guarantee anything that would improve the unfortunate VI situation that we are still facing right now. But it does afford another opportunity to have the situation evaluated. Especially with the situation where the police officer is dictating which DIF(s) the inspection is to take place, I am blindly hopeful that we will see some small improvements there.
As far as item #1 is concerned, I don't actually know how that can be properly done (by the VPD, obviously). I can potentially see how an N&O-hit vehicle might leave a paper trail of failed inspections behind before finally passing the CVSE inspection. However, from just the paper trail alone, I don't see how anyone can accurately determine whether a vehicle has been issued an N&O when it is in fact compliant. My concern here is that the VPD will simply double down on its stance that at the time when the N&O was issued, the violations are there, but when the inspection took place, every problem they saw has already been fixed, so the N&O was justified.
For #2, I want to emphasis that my interpretation of the current MVAR is that the police have the authority to dictate which inspection facility (DIF) the vehicle is to be taken to for inspection. If you look at it that way, the police is complying with departmental policy! What I have been arguing, esp in the review request, is that the practice is unfair, both to the vehicle owner as well as all non-dealership DIFs.
I don't really know where these OPCC recommendations will lead us to, and the OPCC letter does not include a deadline by which the recommendations much be completed. From the audits that I have seen at work, they are always rather involved and a major PITA for everyone (other than the auditors). The results also take a bit of time to compile, so I wouldn't expect to hear from either the VPD or the OPCC about the results for a while. But for now, all I can say is that I am very, very happy to see that what started off as an angry lashing of the police has turned into something that has a realstic hope of changing the situation for the better.
