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 an Appeal to the Ontario Police Commission by:
CONSTABLE CLIFFORD WILSON Appellant
GLOUCESTER POLICE FORCE Respondent
DECISION
Panel: W. Thomas McGrenere, Esq., Q.C., Member Hearing Date: Thursday, August 14, 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
1This is an appeal from the decision of Chief of Police Kenneth Duncan on the 18th day of February, 1980, which decision was upheld by the Board of Commissioners of Police, whereby the appellant, Clifford Wilson, was convicted of acting in a disorderly manner, or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Police Force, contrary to Section 1, i (a) of the Schedule Code of Offences of Ontario, Regulation 680(1970) made in pursuance of The Police Act.
2As a result of the conviction, Chief Duncan required that Constable Wilson resign within seven days and upon failure to do so that he be summarily dismissed from the Force. Constable Wilson failed to resign and was in effect summarily dismissed.
3The facts giving rise to the charge are fairly straightforward. On the night of December 2, 1979, at the Township of Gloucester, Constable Wilson had unnecessarily, and without provocation, threatened to break the legs of one, Michael Frederick. Mr. Frederick had been stopped by fellowofficer, Constable Dunn, who, at the time of the threat, was in the process of giving Mr. Frederick a ticket for failing to have car insurance. While Constable Dunn had returned to his police cruiser, Constable Wilson, who attended the scene in a separate cruiser, approached Frederick who at this time was standing outside of his car. Constable Wilson told Frederick that he did not appreciate Frederick making complaints against policemen. He further indicated that if he lost his job he would break both of Mr. Frederick's legs.
4When it appeared that Frederick was not responding to the threats by Constable Wilson, the Constable then invited Frederick to engage in a fight. The Constable had placed his dentures in his pocket, a gesture that the Officer had demonstrated at least twice earlier when expecting that trouble may develop.
5Constable Wilson pleaded guilty to uttering a threat. Chief Duncan, because of the seriousness of the charge, elected to hear the evidence available. Constable Wilson did not attempt to contradict any of the evidence of Frederick until Chief Duncan was about to give judgement.
6The Chief indicated a preference to the evidence of Frederick over Constable Wilson.
7Chief Duncan did not give reasons as to the punishment that he was to impose. He simply found that, under all the circumstances, Constable Wilson would have to be discharged from the Force. It is implicit in the Chief's decision that he found the conduct of Constable Wilson well below the standard of good policing.
8Counsel for Constable Wilson vigorously and ably submitted that the penalty, under the circumstances, was excessive and harsh. He cited three earlier decisions of the Commission dealing with similar offences wherein the punishment was considerably less. With respect, I believe that the decisions, as cited, are distinguishable. In none of these cases did the charge deal with what could be described as a "vigilante" attitude on the part of the Officers charged. This, in my opinion, was a significant aspect of the chargeagainst Constable Wilson.
9I am satisfied that there was sufficient evidence at the hearing to support the decision of Chief Duncan, and I am not prepared to interfere with the penalty administered by the Chief. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
DATED at the City of Toronto in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, this 25th day of August A.D. 1980
W. Thomas McGrenere, Member