ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF Ontario Regulation 791, R.R.O. 1980 made under
The Police Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.381 and amendments thereto;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to the Ontario Police Commission
by Robert Bruce Long.
DECISION
Panel: John P. MacBeth, Q.C., Vice-Chairman
W. T. McGrenere, Q.C., Member
Hearing Date: April 25, 1984
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
Before:
John P. MacBeth, Q.C., Vice-Chairman
W. T. McGrenere, Q.C., Member
Appearances:
Sgt. Ron Thompson, Windsor Police Force,
Counsel for the Appellant, and the Appellant
appearing in person
E. Marshall, Counsel for the Respondent, and
Chief Allan Armstrong
Hearing: April 25, 1984
- This is an appeal by Sgt. Robert Bruce Long from a conviction registered by the Police Committee of Council for the Township of Colchester South on the 29th day of November, 1983, wherein the Appellant was convicted of the following charges:
Count 1: that he did wilfully or negligently make
a false, misleading or inaccurate statement pertaining
to official duties, contrary to s.l(d)(ii)
of the Schedule Code of Offences of Regulation 791
made under The Police Act, R.S.O. 1970, c.361 as
amended to July 1979;
Count 2: that he did act in a manner likely to
bring discredit upon the reputation of the Police
Force, contrary to s.l(a)(i) of the Schedule Code
of Offences of Regulation 791 made under The Police
Act, R.S.O. 1970, c.361 as amended to July 1979.
The grounds of appeal advanced were as follows:
(a) the officer referred to on the charge sheet as the
authorizing signing officer did not have the legal
right to lay the charges under The Police Act,
Regulation 791, s.6;
(b) the offences for which the officer was convicted
were unsupported by the evidence and there was no
evidence to support the charges.
Ground of Appeal (a)
- The charge sheet in this matter was signed by Sgt. Cliff
Hawkins. It was contended that, amongst other things, this officer was of the same rank as Sgt. Long and did not have the capacity or authority to sign the charge sheet. It was further contended that Sgt. Hawkins was not familiar with the matter, as the investigation had been carried out by Chief Allan Armstrong and that the Chief ought to have been the officer to sign the charge sheet.
Chief Armstrong testified that at the time the charge sheet was signed, he was away on holidays. He had designated Sgt. Hawkin to be Acting Chief and this was confirmed in writing to th Police Committee. He further indicated that he had taken the initial steps prior to his holidays to ensure that the charges were drawn up and he specifically instructed Sgt. Hawkins in his absence to attend to the matter.
Counsel for the Appellant did not take issue with Chief Armstrong's entitlement to designate an Acting Chief in his absence, and there was no question as to the validity of this designation. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that Sgt. Hawkins, in his capacity as Acting Chief, had authority to sign the charge sheets.
Ground of Appeal (b)
While the facts giving rise to the charges in this matter were fairly simple, there were nevertheless some discrepancies between the evidence of the officers testifying in support of the charge, as opposed to Sgt. Long's evidence in defence.
It has been long established that where there are questions of credibility, an Appellate Tribunal ought not to interfere with the findings of the trier of facts, except for extraordinary reasons. In this instance, the Trial Tribunal heard and saw all of the witnesses and we are not persuaded that the circumstances are such that we should interfere with the Tribunal's findings. We are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support the charges.
The Appellant appealed the sentence on both convictions and filed, with the consent of counsel for the Respondent, two medical reports from the Windsor Western Hospital Centre, signed by Dr. Robert J. Mason. Dr. Mason is a psychiatrist and he has concluded that the Appellant suffered from endogenous depression and suggests that the Appellant appears to have undergone a personality change in the past two years or so. In a report dated April 18, 1984, Dr. Mason suggests that the Appellant has "pretty largely recovered from the endogenous depression." While these reports may assist in explaining Sgt. Long's conduct, we are not satisfiedthat they lay the basis for interfering with the Tribunal's penalty in this matter.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
DATED at the City of Toronto this 11th day of May 1984.
John P. MacBeth, Q.C., Vice-Chairman
W. T. McGrenere, Q.C., Member```