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:
Corporal R. C. Crawrord, #2541 -and- Constable D. A. Fry, #4205 Appellant
-and-
Ontario Provincial Police Respondent
DECISION
Panel: John P. MacBeth, Esq., Q.C., Vice Chairman W. C. McKay, Esq., Member
Hearing Date: Monday, October 22nd, 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 W. C. McKay, Esq., Member
Appearances:
W. Michael Temple, Esq., Q.C. Counsel tor the Appellants Corporal R. C. Crawford Appellant Constable Douglas A. Fry Appellant
Dennis W. Brown, Esq., Q.C. Counsel for the Respondent Ontario Provincial Police Inspector A. M. Wilkinson Ontario Provincial Police
John P. MacBeth, Vice Chairman.
1This is an appeal by Corporal R.C. Crawtord and Constable Douglas A. Fry from their convictions on a minor charge of Neglect of Duty as defined in Section l(c)(i) of the Schedule Code of Offences, contained in Regulation 791, R.R.O. 1980.
2The Charge against both officers reads as follows:
"In that you did without lawful excuse neglect or omit to perform a duty as a member of the Ontario Provincial Police Force contrary to Section l(c)(i) of the Code of Offences contained in Regulation 791 made under the Police Act."
3The Statement of Particulars following the Charge against Corporal Crawford reads as follows:-
"On January 28, 1985 on receiving a request from Harmen VAN POELGEEST to dispose of German Luger firearm, you dispatched Provincial Constable D.A. FRY to pick up the firearm. On returning to the detachment with the weapon, Constable FRY advised you ttiat he was purchasing the firearm. As his supervisor, you failed to see that Constable FRY complied with Police Orders in relation to the proper storage and disposal of this weapon.
4The Statement of Particulars following the Charge against Constable Fry reads as follows:-
"On January 28, 1985 you obtained a .9 mm Luger firearm from Harmen VAN POELGEEST which was turned over to the Force for disposal. You kept this firearm for personal gain, contravening Police Orders."
5Both cases were heard together and likewise the appeals were heard together.
6The argument for the appellants was that neither ot them intended to commit an otfence and did not know that the were breaching Force policy and further that the appellants acted reasonably under ail ot the circumstances.
7We do not believe that there was any intent to deceive on the part of either officer. Intent is not, however, an element of the offence.
8Force procedures regarding weapon disposal (Exhibits 11 and 12) are reasonably explicit. tach otticer should have been aware of them.
9If there was uncertainty in either of their minds they could have referred to the Procedures.
10They clearly breached Force Procedures.
11The offences have been charged as minor offences and we believe properly so.
12We find that the penalties imposed, in the case of Corporal Crawford, the forfeiture ot two days' pay and in the case of Constable Fry, the forfeiture ot three vacation days, also to be appropriate.
13We therefore dismiss both appeals and confirm the convictions and penalties.
DATED at the City of Toronto in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, this 25th day of October A.D. 1985.
John P. MacBeth, Q.C. Vice Chairman.
W.C. Mckay, Member.