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 Ontario Provincial Police:
Constable C. J. Rogers, #2525 Appellant
-and-
Ontario Provincial Police Respondent
DECISION
Panel: David I. Stewart, Esq., Q.C. W. G. McKay, Esq
Hearing Date: June 5, 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
- This is an appeal from a decision by Staff Superintendent H. T.Carry, made on the 15th of January, 1985 at Mount Forest, Ontario, wherein he found Provincial Constable Charles James Rogers, #2525, guilty of discreditable conduct contrary to Section l(a)(i) of the Code of Offences contained in Regulation 791 .
The facts briefly stated are as follows:
O.P.P. Constable C. J. Rogers, a 21 year member of the force, was, on or about the 14th of August, 1984, while stationed at the Wingham Detachment, on duty in uniform in a marked cruiser in the evening, patrolling an area known as South Beach, Saugeen Indian Reserve. The officer came in contact with two occupants of a parked motor vehicle, being a 19 year old female and a 21 year old male. In the course of a ten or fifteen minute conversation the officer used language which, by his own admission, included the remarks "When we come up to a car with steamed-up windows (as this car had), we usually find a person eyeballs and bare-asses". Further, in his conversation with the female occupant, referring to her male companion in the car, said "What are we going to do with him?...Maybe we could shoot him."
These remarks and others were made in the context of a joking, casual conversation. The officer knew the male occupant of the vehicle but was a stranger to the female.
While no complaint was lodged officially, the incident became public knowledge by an article in the Wiarton Echo of Wednesday, August 20, 1984, outlining the event, anonymous as to the participants except that an O.P.P. officer was involved.
The Appellant argues that the female who gave testimony at the hearing did not consider the totality of the conversation offensive. The Respondent contends that the admitted conduct of the officer was a mis-use of the office of a police officer and went beyond the point of a joke or casual conversation.
Looking at the provisions of the Schedule of Code of Offences, Discreditable Conduct, as per l(a)(i) reads:
"Acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force".
- We have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the words spoken by the officer, especially in the context of the setting, were such as should not be uttered by any police officer on duty in uniform, and we find such conduct discreditable and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
DATED at the City of Toronto in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, this 21st day June A.D. 1985.
Winfield C. Mckay, Member
David I. Stewart, Q.C. Member