ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF the Police Ace, K.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 Joseph Knickle Appellant
-and-
Metropolitan Toronto Police Respondent
DECISION
Panel: John P. Macbeth, Esq., Q.C., Vice Chairman Winfield C. McKay, Esq., Member
Hearing Date: Tuesday, May 21st, 1985.
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, Esq., Q.C., Vice Chairman
Winfield C. McKay, Esq., Member
Appearances:
Harold Dale, Esq. Counsel for the Appellant
Ronald M. Parker, Q.C., Esq. Counsel tor the Respondent
Metropolitan Toronto Police Staff Inspector John Addison Metropolitan Toronto Police
Date: Tuesday, May 21st, 1985.
This is an appeal by Police Constable Joseph Knickle of a penalty of forfeiture of twelve days oft imposed originally by Superintendent Robert D. Flemming, Metropolitan Toronto Police, on April 17th, 1984, which penalty was later reduced to nine days oft on appeal to the Board of Commissioners of Police, Metropolitan Toronto, on November 1st, 1984.
The facts briefly stated are that on Thursday, February 16th, 1984, P.C. Joseph Knickle No. 61b2, was assigne duty as a special bank stake-out inside the Toronto- Dominion Bank at 1746 Jane Street, Toronto, from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. for the purpose of preventing possible robberies and to apprehend robbery suspects. At approximately ll:00 A.M. P.C. Knickie left the bank to go to a nearby store. At about 11:18 A.M. a man entered the bank and attempted to rob it by producing a note reading "give me the money; I have a gun." The bank employee so confronted did not comply, perhaps relying on the expected presence of Constable Knickle, and the man fled empty-handed. It is understood he has not yet been apprehended.
Mr. Dale, Counsel for P.C. Knickle argued that he was a conscientious, diligent police officer, in fact a exemplary officer highly regarded by his superiors. He noted that to his credit P.C. Knickle had pleaded guilty, apologized, and had exhibited remores. He stated that in his opinion some discretion was possible in the leaving of his post.
Mr. Parker, Counsel tor the Board of Commissioners of Police, conceded that P.C. Knickle was a conscientious and diligent officer and that the penalty imposed, reduced on appeal, had indeed taken this into account. The penalty could have been more severe, and, he noted, as Metropolitan Toronto Police officers are well paid for their services the public has a right to expect top service.
The charge is not in dispute. Neglect of duty - "leaves an area, detachment, detail or other place of duty, without due permission or sufficient cause" appears to cover the situation under consideration. We accept evidence that P.C. Knickle is a good officer and do not regard the penalty as an impediment to his career providing his good record is maintained in the future. While it was undoubtedly bad luck that a felon entered the bank during the relatively short time that P.C. Knickle was absent, conversely it can be argued that it was extremely good luck that a robbery did not take place which could have resulted in death or injury to bank employees or customers. Had such latter events been the case it is reasonable to speculate that a considerably more serious penalty would have ensued.
V/e see no reason to alter the penalty of nine days off, Therefore, the appeal is dismissed,
DATED at the City of Toronto in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, this 3rd day of July A.D. 1985
John P. MacBeth, Q.C.
Vice President
Windfield C. Mckay,
Member