Writing Opinion Discussion on A Case: Edmonton (Police Service) (Applicant) v Ahlstrom (Respondent), 2023 ABCA 248 (CanLII)

Summary of the Case: 

The case Edmonton (Police Service) (Applicant) v. Ahlstrom (Respondent), 2023 ABCA 248, the Edmonton Police Service sought permission to appeal a decision made by the Law Enforcement Review Board. This case was about Constable David Ahlstrom, who had admitted to misconduct on duty, leading to his dismissal from the Edmonton Police Service. The Review Board however, reversed this decision and instead reinstated Ahlstrom's employment while imposing a rank reduction for two years. The Chief of the Edmonton Police Service applied for permission to appeal this decision under the Police Act. 

The case starts from Ahlstrom's actions on October 4, 2016, when he was assigned to maintain perimeter security at a crime scene. He breached the perimeter security, took $300 in cash, and later confessed to his supervisors (Edmonton (Police Service) v Ahlstrom, 2023 ABCA 248).  This caused an investigation by the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT), during which two integrity tests were conducted. In the first trial, Ahlstrom accepted cash and gift cards from an undercover officer without documenting the event. During the second trial, he took money and cigarettes from a reported stolen vehicle and was subsequently arrested. Ahlstrom pleaded guilty to two counts of breach of trust by a public officer, resulting in a suspended sentence, 18 months of probation, and a victim fine surcharge. The case centered on the Review Board's decision to reinstate Ahlstrom, prompting the appeal application by the Chief of Police. 

Decision:  

Presiding Officer’s Decision The decision was based on factors outlined in Amery v Young, giving more weight to the applicant's expert medical evidence concerning post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) over the respondent's evidence. It was found that the respondent's mental health issues were not a factor in the first theft but did contribute to the subsequent ones (Edmonton (Police Service) v Ahlstrom, 2023 ABCA 248). Conclusively, the Presiding Officer decided that the severity of the misconduct outweighed the influence of mental health concerns, leading to the decision of dismissal, considering it significantly greater than other cases in terms of both the nature of the thefts and policy breaches. Board’s Decision On the other hand, the Board, in response to the respondent's appeal, found that the Presiding Officer's decision was flawed in several respects. First, they deemed the determination that the respondent's mental health issues were not a contributing factor to the first theft but were to the subsequent ones as unreasonable. Additionally, the Board criticized the reliance on the applicant's expert's opinion in contrasting symptoms of PTSD and MDD and the respondent's behavior during the first theft (Edmonton (Police Service) v Ahlstrom, 2023 ABCA 248). They further found fault in the Presiding Officer's reasoning regarding the respondent's ability to return to policing, highlighting inconsistencies in past performance reviews and a lack of sufficient reasoning for discounting medical evidence. Although, agreeing with the Presiding Officer on other factors, the Board ultimately reduced the sanction to a two-year rank reduction without additional elaboration. 

My Thoughts 

I agree with the Presiding Officer’s Decision but disagree with the Board’s Decision. Since the case involves a significant dispute over the employment rights of an officer, Constable Ahlstrom, who faced dismissal from the Edmonton Police Service due to misconduct, the presiding officer’s decision considered employment rights of the officer such as fair treatment, due process, and consideration of mental health concerns in disciplinary proceedings.  According to Shain & Nassar (2009), courts have determined that there is a common law duty of care to safeguard employees' mental health that derives from both the employment contract itself and a wider base known as tort law. These sources of safety are in addition to any statutory protections, such as those provided by laws governing workers' compensation, human rights, occupational health and safety, and employment standards. While the Board’s decision that the respondent's mental health issues were not a contributing factor to the first theft but were to the subsequent ones as unreasonable, Presiding Officer’s decision for dismissal of Officer Ahlstrom considers the impact of his mental health on his actions. I find Presiding Officer decision valid. 

References 

Shain, M., & Nassar, C. (2009). Stress at work, mental injury and the law in Canada. Mental Health Commission of Canada, 21.