ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF the Police Act, R.S.O., 1980, c. 381, and
Amendments thereto and Regulations thereunder;
- and –
IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal to the Ontario Police Commission
by:
CONSTABLE STEPHEN DURIANCIK, #3205
METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE
DECISION
Panel: W. T. McGrenere, Esq., Q.C.
John P. MacBeth, Esq., Q.C.
Hearing Date: Friday, September 3rd, 1982
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
[1]. This is an appeal by Constable Stephen Duriancik of his conviction and of the sentence imposed on the 13th October, 1981 on the major charge of discreditable conduct contrary to Section 1 (a)(i) of the Schedule "Code of Offences" as contained in Regulation 791 of Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1980.
[2]. The hearing came on by way of "agreed statement of facts".
The incident giving rise to the charge occurred
on the 29th May, 1981 in Room 173, Old City Hall,
Toronto in the presence and hearing of Clerk
Diane Hall, 86755, a civilian member of the
Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and Cadet Gary
Brennan, 6325 of the said force.
The incident consisted of Constable Duriancik
speaking to Clerk Diane Hall using language which
would be characterized as profane, abusive or
insulting, including calling Clerk Diane Hall
a "slut".
Constable Stephen Duriancik subsequently wrote
a letter of apology to Clerk Diane Hall.
The only persons present when the offensive
language was uttered were the appellant, Clerk
Hall and Cadet Brennan.
[3]. Counsel for the appellant reasoned that the charge had been laid wrongly under subsection 1 (a)(i) and shoul have been laid under 1 (a)(ill) that the offence was not within the ambit of subsection 1 (a)(i) and that this appeal should therefore be allowed.
[4]. Counsel for the appellant contended that subsection 1 (a)(i) required discredit before the public and referred to Regina v. Peterborough Police Commissioners, Ex parte Lewis, 1965 Vol. 2 Ontario Reports. At page 583 of that case there is reference to the effect that the actions of the constable involved might have on the opinion of many in the city. It is not however a precedent for saying that subsection 1 (a)(i) requires public discredit and we find that "public" is not an ingredient of the offence.
[5]. The discredit upon the reputation of the police force can be either internal, external or both and need not have actually been brought about but "likely to".
[6]. It was also contended that Clerk Hall and Cadet Brennan were not members of the public since they were employees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.
[7]. Our interpretation of subsection 1 (a)(i) does not require us to decide whether or not being members of the force excluded them at least for periods of duty from also being members of the public.
[8]. In any event there is no assurance that conduct such as Constable Duriancik's would be contained within the four walls, as in fact it has not, and therefore carried with it the potential of wide discredit to the reputation of the force.
[9]. We find that Constable Duriancik was in no way misled as to the nature or particulars of the charge, that the specific nature of subsection 1 (aHiii) does not remove such offence from also being included in subsection 1 (a)(i)
[10]. We have considered the penalty imposed and in view of the constable's previous record of misdemeanour and nature of the present charge find no grounds for interference with it .
[11]. The appeal of Constable Duriancik's conviction and sentence is therefore dismissed.
DATED at the City of Toronto in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, this 24th day of September, A.D. 1982.
W.T. McGreenere, Q.C.
Member
John P. MacBeth, 1.C.
Vice Chairman