SASKATOON, Sask. — Saskatchewan’s highest court pressed a lawyer Thursday on whether appeal judges have the power to overlook a missed filing deadline that prevented two former Saskatoon police officers from challenging their dismissals.
A lawyer for Jason Garland and Dylan Kemp is asking the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to overturn a King’s Bench decision that found their appeals were never properly started under The Police Act, 1990.
“It was our office’s error,” Steve Seiferling told the Appeal Court on Oct. 8. “It was not Mr. Kemp or Mr. Garland’s error.”
The case is before the Court of Appeal after a Court of King’s Bench judge dismissed the officers’ application earlier this year. In February, the judge ruled their appeals were never properly started because the notices weren’t submitted to the Saskatchewan Police Commission within the required 30-day deadline. She found the court didn’t have authority to alter the filing requirements set out in The Police Act and that there was no duty to appoint a hearing officer because the statutory appeal requirements weren’t met.
Garland and Kemp were dismissed by the Saskatoon Police Service following a decision by the chief of police in September 2025. Seiferling prepared appeal documents and sent them to the police service and the Saskatoon Police Association within days. But the documents weren’t sent to the Saskatchewan Police Commission until after the 30-day deadline had passed because of what Seiferling described as an error by his office.
Seiferling urged the appeal court to view the situation as a case of “imperfect compliance,” saying the Saskatoon Police Service and the union received the appeal documents within days of the dismissals.
He pointed to Saskatchewan case law that he argued showed courts can excuse some filing errors when there’s clear intent to appeal and no prejudice to the other side. He said The Police Act doesn’t say that a late-filed appeal is void and argued the appellants shouldn’t be punished for their lawyer’s mistake when they clearly intended to appeal.
When questioned by the panel on the consequences of missing a strict statutory deadline, Seiferling said if the court can’t grant relief, his clients’ remaining recourse would be to launch a professional negligence lawsuit against his firm.
He also argued there was no prejudice to the police service, as they received the appeal documents within days of the dismissals. By contrast, he said, the appellants face irreversible career consequences if denied an appeal.
“By no wrongdoing of their own, the appellants’ appeals have been waylaid,” wrote Seiferling in his factum to the court. “To permit this injustice to be final is unequitable and unjust, punishes parties that simply sought legal assistance in attempting to save their careers.”
Seiferling argued the commission or the ministry has a legal duty to appoint a hearing officer once an appeal is filed and that the duty is ministerial, not discretionary.
The court should consider the equitable nature of the mandamus remedy, allow the appeal, and order that the minister appoint a hearing officer to handle the appellants’ appeals, he argued.
During arguments, one judge asked how the appeal process normally works once a notice of appeal is filed with the commission. Charita Ohashi, representing the Saskatchewan Police Commission, said the process is informal. She said a properly filed appeal would simply be forwarded to the ministry, likely by email, so a hearing officer could be designated.
Seiferling pointed to what he described as a missing internal link in the legislation. He argued that The Police Act doesn’t explain how an appeal moves from the commission to the ministry for the appointment of a hearing officer and said jurisdictional questions should be decided by a hearing officer rather than the commission or ministry.
The three-judge panel repeatedly questioned where the court would get the authority to overlook the requirements in the legislation. One judge said that Section 61 of The Police Act specifically says an appeal is made “by submitting a notice of appeal to the office of the commission.”
“The words matter,” the judge told Seiferling. “We don’t have the power to ignore the statute. Some statutes give power, this one doesn’t.”
Lawyers for the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS), the Ministry of Policing, Corrections and Public Safety, and the Saskatchewan Police Commission, all argued the appeal should be dismissed.
Kristin MacLean, representing SPS, told the court Saskatchewan case law has consistently held that statutory appeal deadlines are mandatory and can’t be extended unless legislation allows it.
“The appeal simply does not exist until that step is taken,” said MacLean.
She also rejected defence claims that fairness or equitable considerations could override the legislation.
Lawyers for the ministry and the commission echoed those arguments.
Christoph Meier, representing the ministry, said the right to an appeal only exists if all statutory requirements are met.
“The legislation is very, very clear,” Meier told the court.
Ohashi added the remedy sought by the appellants can’t be granted against the commission because it has no authority under the statute to appoint hearing officers.
The three-judge panel reserved its decision.
ljoy@sasktoday.ca
