Constable G.L. Pelissero v. Ontario Provincial Police, 1981 CanLII 3039

IN THE MATTER OF The Police Act, R.S.O. 1979, c. 151,

and amendments thereto and Regulations thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal to the Ontario Police

Commission by:

DECISION

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

Hearing Date: Thursday, August 6, 1981

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

Appearances:

W. Michael Temple* Esq., Q.C., Counsel for

the Appellant.

Thomas Lederer, Esq., Counsel for the

Respondent, and Inspector R.H. Hodgson.

Hearing: Thursday, August 6, 1981

This is an appeal by Ontario Provincial Police Constable Gordon Louis Pelissero, #4817, from his conviction of "Neglect of Duty", in that he did omit to make a necessary entry in an official document or book, contrary 1. iii (h) of the Code of Offences, contained in Regulation 680 made under The Police Act, and the penalty imposed of the "loss of two days' pay", by Assistant Commissioner E.S. Loree, on the first day of April, 1981.
The facts really were not in dispute and are concisely set out in the Assistant Commissioner's Judgement, and I adopt the following:

That the evidence "indicates that in the latter

part of July, Constable Pelissero was on his way

to work in plain clothes, dressed in blue jeans,

carrying a motor-cycle helmet, and observed four

males drinking beer. He identified himself as a

police officer and, after engaging himself in conversation

with them, he disposed of the beer and

marihuana, but went on to seize this pair of black

lined gloves, lined with some type of substance,

described as lead, from the reddish-coloured van,

and then asked the persons to leave, after having

searched them and found a small pocket-knife. He

went to the office and placed the gloves in his

locker, and according to the report here 'For further

attention later'."

Constable Pelissero continued with his duties at Ontario Place until approximately August 29, 1980, and failed during that time to make any entries in the Occurrence Book or submit a general occurrence report or a property report, nor did he make an entry in his Daily Journal.
The various sections requiring officers to make the appropriate entries for records were referred to and they were not in dispute, with the exception that there was a suggestion that an officer was not required to make a report when he was off duty. This was dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner as well, and it was not seriously challenged on appeal
The main ground of appeal was that the evidence disclosed that Constable Pelissero acted reasonably, and that because of the general preamble to the general orders, he was at liberty to exercise some discretion.
It is obvious from the reasons of the Assistant Commissioner that he considered the various defences available to the Constable and found them wanting. In addition, Constable Pelissero, in the latter part of his evidence, admitted that it was obvious that he should have made an entry in the General Occurrence Book of his detachment.
In all the circumstances, I believe that the conclusion reached by the Assistant Commissioner was appropriate and supported by the evidence before him.
The appellant appealed the penalty imposed as being excessive in the circumstances, and asked that, instead of the loss of two days' pay imposed, a reprimand be given. It is obvious that the Assistant Commissioner considered this aspect carefully and, while I may not have administered the same penalty, I am not prepared to say that the penalty administered by the Assistant Commissioner was not appropriate in the circumstances
The appeal from the conviction and from the penalty imposed will, therefore, be dismissed.

DATED at the City of Toronto in the Municipality of Metropolitan

Toronto, this 12thday of August, A.D. 1981.

W.T.McGrenere,Member,