Constable D. Pantaleo v. Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, 1980 CanLII 2754

ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF The Police Act, R.S.O. 1970, Chapter 351, and amendments thereto and Regulations thereunder; and,

IN THE MATTER OF Appeals to The Ontario Police Commission by:

CONSTABLE D. PANTALEO Appellant

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE Respondent

DECISION

Panel: W. Thomas McGrenere, Esq., Q.C., Member.

Hearing Date: Thursday, October 30, 1980, at 10:00 a.m.

Hearing Location: Toronto, Ontario

Ontario Civilian Police Commission 250 Dundas Street West, Suite 605 Toronto, Ontario M7A 2T3 Tel: 416-314-3004 Fax: 416-314-0198 Website: www.ocpc.ca

W. Thomas McGrenere, Esq., Q.C., Member

Appearances:

L. Maureen Kenny, Counsel for the Appellant, who also appeared in person.

Eric P. Polten, Counsel for the Respondent, Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

Hearing: Thursday, October 30, 1980, at 10:00 a.m.

1This is an appeal by Police Constable Daniele Pantaleo from punishment imposed by the presiding officer, Superintendent D. Sproule, following a hearing held on May 6, 1980, on a major charge of neglect of duty in that he was absent without leave from Court without reasonable excuse contrary to Section l(iii)(j) of the Schedule Code of Offences, Ontario Regulation 680/70, made under The Police Act, which punishment was confirmed by the Board of Commissioners of Metropolitan Toronto Police on the 4th day of September, 1980.

2Constable Pantaleo pleaded guilty to the charge of neglect of duty and was administered a penalty by the presiding officer of a forfeiture of eight days off.

3It was submitted by counsel for Constable Pantaleo that the penalty administered was harsh and inequitable bearing in mind the purpose and the effect of discipline. It was suggested that the penalty ought not to be punitive nor should it be based on retribution. The main effect of the discipline ought to be corrective in nature.

4It was submitted by counsel for the Respondent that to be consistent with the dictates of this Commission, the penalty had to be a deterrent not only for the officer in question, but to the Force as a whole.

5In the context of these proceedings, I see little distinction between deterring and correcting. One would think that the problem would be corrected by deterring the officer's offensive conduct.

6The record of Constable Pantaleo indicates that he has neglected his duty on thirteen separate occasions and such neglect is demonstrated in the following manner:

Late for duty;

Absent from Court;

Failure to subpoena a witness;

Failure to report for duty;

Off sick but not home when checked.

7It was urged by counsel for Constable Pantaleo that Superintendent Sproule ought not to simply look at the cumulative total of misdemeanours by the Constable, but ought to direct his mind to the gravity of the offence in issue when assessing the penalty to be administered to the Constable. Secondly, Superintendent Sproule ought to consider the relative merits of each of the other misdemeanours before taking them into consideration in assessing the penalty for the offence in question. It was submitted tha Superintendent Sproule did not adequately consider these points, but simply applied a penalty which was greater than the penalty imposed as a result of an earlier conviction against Constable Pantaleo.

8As is obvious from the facts in this case, neglect of duty manifests itself in many ways. Although the presiding officer's reasons are brief, I nevertheless believe that it is implicit in the reasons that Superintendent Sproule took into consideration not only the number of misdemeanours by Constable Pantaleo, but the fact that each was evidence of neglect of duty.

9While it may well be argued that the imposition of a penalty of the loss of eight days for being absent from Court is an unduly harsh penalty given other circumstances,in thisinstance, it is impossible to divorce Constable Pantaleo'srecord of neglect of duty from a consideration of an adequate penalty.

10A penalty must be consistent and commensurate with the breach in each individual case.

11I do not believe in the circumstances at hand that the penalty administered was unduly harsh, nor do I believe that it is likely to have an adverse effect on the members of the Force if they are aware of the background details in this matter. This appeal is therefore dismissed.