Crawford v. Ontario Provincial Police, 1984 CanLII 3112

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 Ontario Provincial Police Corporal ROBERT CHARLES CRAWFORD.

DECISION

Panel: John P. MacBeth, Q.C., Vice-Chairman W. T. McGrenere, Q.C., Member

Hearing Date: December 4, 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: Michael Temple, Q.C., Counsel for the Appellant, and the Appellant appearing in person Brian Johnson, Q.C., Counsel for the Respondent, and Inspector W. B. German

Hearing: December 4, 1984

1. The Appellant appeals from his conviction of discreditable conduct in that he did act in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Ontario Provincial Police Force, contrary to s.l(i)(a) of the Code of Offences contained in Regulation de under The Police Act, by Staff Superintendent H. T. Carry on the 3rd day of May, 1984, and from the penalty imposed of twenty days' leave.

2. The statement of particulars read as follows: some time during the year 1980, Corporal Crawford took possession of an H & R Topper single-shot 12-gauge shotgun from Constable J. A. C. Belisle of the Rockland Detachment when he knew or ought to have known that the weapon had been seized in the course of a criminal investiga- tion. He kept the shotgun even after he had been informed by Constable Belisle that the weapon had in fact been seized during the course of a criminal investigation and did thereby commit a major offence.

3. The facts giving rise to the conviction herein can be summarized as follows. In the fall of 1979, P.C. Belisle seized a 12-gauge shotgun during a criminal investigation. The gun and the person from whom it was seized were taken to the Rockland Detachment where the person gave two statements, one dealing with the gun and another dealing with a stolen tractor. The latter statement was initialled by the Appellant who had been specifically called into work late in the evening to accommodate, at least in part, the criminal investigation.

4. Some time in 1980, Constable Belisle took the seized gun to his home rather than have it destroyed as required by the Regulations. After keeping it for a few months, he gave it to the Appellant.

5. The gun was noted as missing on August 7, 1981 and this eventually led to an investigation by Superintendent O'Rourk from Toronto The Superintendent and Sergeant N. Needham interviewed the Appellant on August 31, 1981 specifically about the missing gun. At that time, the Sergeant stated to the Appellant that it looked bad for Constable Belisle. The Appellant denied any knowledge of the gun.

6. On September 1, 1981 Constable Belisle was interviewed by Superintendent O'Rourk and Sergeant Needham and he admitted to taking the gun. Later on the same day, the Constable attended at the Appellant's home and advised him that the Superintendent and Sergeant would be by to pick up the gun. The Constable had given a statement to Superintendent O'Rourk stating that he had told theAppellant some time between May and September 1981 about the origin of the gun. Under cross-examination at trial, the Constable stated that he was not prepared to swear under oath that he had told the Appellant about the origin of the gun before September 1.

7. The discovery that the gun was missing from the vault occurred as a result of an enquiry by the son of the alleged owner of the gun. The son had attempted to ascertain whether the gun had been recovered. This person was shown a document that purported to bear the owner's signature declaring receipt of the gun. The owner's son alleged that the signature was a forgery. This fact was reported to the Appellant who in turn telephoned Constable Belisle at his home to report this allegation as he had been the officer in charge of the original seizure of the gun. The Constable indicated that he would look after the matter and the Appellant made no record of the incident, nor does there appear to have been any real follow-up as to the disposition. The documents bearing the alleged forged signature of the owner were destroyed by Constable Belisle, according to his own admission.

8. The defence put forth at the discipline hearing was twofold: (1) that the Appellant did not know that the gun he received from Constable Belisle had been seized in the course of a criminal investigation, and (2) that there was no evidence upon which a trial officer could conclude that the Appellant ought to have known about the origin of the gun.

9. On appeal, it was submitted that the trial officer's decision was obviously based upon findings that the Appellant should have known as to the origin of the gun, as opposed to a finding that the Appellant knew that the gun had been seized in a criminal investigation. It was contended that the trial officer posed the appropriate question to himself, but then failed to answer, and further that the facts proven at the hearing fell far short of supporting the findings that the trial officer made.

10. While the trial officer clearly failed to deal with the contradictory evidence of Constable Belisle, and while we believe his findings to support his decision could have been amplified somewhat, we are nevertheless satisfied that there was sufficient evidence placed before him to support his conclusion on both the conviction and the penalty.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

DATED at Toronto this 21st day of December, 1984

John P. MacBeth, Q.C.

Vice CHairman