Olivia Grandy
Saskatoon StarPhoenix
A Saskatoon judge will not grant two dismissed Saskatoon Police Service officers an appeal hearing after their lawyer failed to serve the Saskatchewan Police Commission with an appeal notice in the allotted time period.
Arguing that his clients, Dylan Kemp and Jason Garland, shouldn’t be deprived of a chance to get their jobs back due to actions of their counsel, Steven Seiferling asked Justice Natasha Crooks to order the Ministry of Community Safety and SPC to appoint a hearing officer to determine if his clients should be rehired.
In a 21-page decision released Friday, Crooks laid out the legal reasoning behind her decision.
“Given the applicants’ non-compliance with the statutory requirements in submitting their appeals, the minister owes no duty to the applicants to designate a hearing officer to hear these appeals,” the decision reads.
“As such, the appeal is a nullity as it only comes to exist if it is commenced in compliance with the legislation.”
According to email records included in the decision and an originating application dated Nov. 25, 2025, Seiferling sent notices of the officers’ intent to appeal their September 2025 dismissals that same month to the SPS along with the Saskatoon Police Association.
However, Seiferling acknowledged that due to an “error of counsel,” notice was not sent to SPC, which is responsible for appointing an appeal hearing officer.
Saskatchewan’s Police Act, 1990, requires that a notice of appeal be submitted to the commission within 30 days of a member receiving a dismissal decision.
Seiferling previously argued if the ministry and commission want to take issue with the notice of appeal not being filed in the correct time frame, they should do that before an appointed hearing officer as per the Police Act.
Christoph Meier, the lawyer representing the ministry, said the improper filing amounts to a “substantial” issue, not a less serious procedural one.
SPS lawyer Kristin MacLean argued that the Police Act sets out a clear process for filing appeals of termination, including the time frame.
Crook’s decision also interpreted the legislation to be substantive in nature.
“I am satisfied that the time limit reflects the legislature’s intent that it serves as a condition of appeal. As such, it must be regarded as a matter of substantive law.”
In November 2024, SPS suspended five officers with pay as their conduct at an off-duty party two months prior was investigated.
According to a CBC report, sources alleged that a member of the SPS Emergency Response Unit assaulted a female officer at the party, which was hosted by another member of that unit. It was also claimed that a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang was at the party, which jeopardized the police undercover program.
— With files from the StarPhoenix’s Michael Joel Hansen
