Constable Craig Andrus v. Metropolitan Toronto Police, 1985 CanLII 3199

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 Craig Andrus, #2877

Appellant

-and-

Metropolitan Toronto Police

Respondent

DECISION

Panel: John P. Macbeth, Esq., Q.C., Vice Chairman David G. Stewart, Esq., Q.C., Member

Hearing Date: Friday, July 19th, 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

1This is an appeal by Police Constable Craig Andrus of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force from his conviction and penalty imposed on the charge of Neglect of Duty.

2The charge reads as follows:

"That you did without lawful excuse, neglect or omit promptly and diligently to perform a duty as a member of the police force, contrary to Section l(c)(i) of the Schedule Code of Offences of Ontario, Regulation 791/80, made in pursuance of the Police Act of Ontario, anddid thereby commit a Major offence.

STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS

Being a member of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force attached to No. 43 Division, you, on Wednesday, February 8th, 1984, were working the 7:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. relief, assigned to Scout Car 4308, along with Police Constable George Lloyd, 3007. At about 11:00 a.m. you entered the Unique hairstyling School, 3655 Kingston Road, to get your hair cut. At about 1 1 : 1 1 a.m. Police Constable George Lloyd, 3007, received a radio call relative to ahold-up alarm at the Bank of Montreal, 3081 Kingston Road. He entered the Unique Hairstyling School and made you aware of the alarm, resulting in you remaining there and declining to assist. Police Constable George Lloyd, 3007, attended the alarm call alone. On the arrival of Police Constable George Lloyd, 3007, at the Bank of Montreal, 3081 Kingston Road, it was confirmed that a hold-up had taken place. Without lawful excuse, you neglected or omitted promptly and diligently to perform a duty as a member of the Police Force.

3A hearing was held on the 27th day of June, 1984, before Superintendent W. Tyrrell who convicted Constable Andrus of the offence and imposed a penalty of gradation in rank from First Class Police Constable to Second Class Police Constable. The Penalty carried with it a recommendation that Constable Andrus remain a Second Class Constable for the full term of one year.

4The Board of Commissioners of Police subsequently altered the penalty by requesting Chief Marks to review the gradation in rank at his discretion rather than after one year.

5At the commencement of this hearing counsel for both parties stated that by agreement the appeal as to conviction would be abandoned. There remained a difference as to the terms of the penalty. The position of the appellant was that the period at the reduced rank should be no more than three months. The position of the Respondent was that the period at the reduced rank should be no more than six months. Both periods could be shortened at the Chief's discretion.

6Counsel made presentations as to why their respective positions represented the appropriate penalty.

7We have reviewed the evidence in the matter and although we understand the constable has an otherwise good record we regard the present offence and the circumstances of it as serious.

8We therefore find the longer period of six months a more reasonable time to allow the Chief to make his assessment.

9We therefore dismiss, on consent, the appeal as to conviction and alter the penalty so that the reduction from First Class Constable to Second Class Constable will be for a period of six months with discretion to the Chief of the Force to review earlier, but not before three months have been served as Second Class Constable.