Dear Sir,

The present one follows upon our letter of April 16, 1997.

After having examined the pled facts, we are of the opinion that the behaviour of an investigation necessary is not had regard to the circumstances and, in accordance with the powers that confers to us the article 65 of the Law on the police organization, we refuse to hold it for the following reasons:

In his complaint, Mr Serge Joseph Adrien Bourassa-Lacombe pleads that on July 30, 1995 some not identified police officers, member of the  Montreal Urban Community, presented themselves to his residence to answer a complaint that an employee of a radio station had just followed upon a call of the plaintiff who wanted to be made hear on the waves of this station. However, he pleads that these police officers set out again at once.

This complaint being such, our only alternative is to refuse to take action pursuant to it since no derogatory act is in question.

Perhaps the plaintiff did not appreciate the arrival of police officers in his residence. In addition, we are of the opinion that they did nothing but owe them while answering this call.

You have the right to make revise this decision by the Committee of police deontology. If you want to exert this right, you will have to deposit, in the 15 days of the notification of this decision, a written declaration containing an explanation called upon with the support of your request for revision for the following address:

This 15 days deadline is required, i.e. the Committee must have received your request at the latest the 15th day following the reception by you of the decision of the Commissioner.

Sincerely yours

 

 

The assistant commissioner,

Louise Marcotte, lawyer

LM/db