Constable Charles F. Reidl v. Ontario Provincial Police, 1985 CanLII 3202

ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF the Police Act, 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 Charles F. Reidl, #3073 Appellant

-and-

Ontario Provincial Police Respondent

DECISION

Panel: John P. MacBeth, Esq., Q.C., Vice Chairman Hearing Date: Friday, December 7th, 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, Esq., Q.C., Vice Chairman

Appearances: W. Michael Temple, Q.C., Esq., Counsel for the Appellant. The Appellant.

Brian J. B. Johnston, Esq., Q.C., Counsel for the Respondent, Ontario Provincial Police Force.

Inspector A. M. Wilkinson, Ontario Provincial Police

Date: Friday, December 7th, 1984.

1. This is an appeal by Provincial Police Constable Charles F. Reidl from his conviction on the charge of Discreditable Conduct laid under Section 1 (a)(i) of the Code of Offences contained in Regulation 791.

2. The Statement of Particulars reads as toliows:

3. On March 26th, 1984, at approximately 225!> hrs. while operating Force vehicle 6-915 on Bruce County Road-iO-19 and in the Town of Walkerton, you caused the Chesley Police Force car operated by Constable A. WILSON to engage in a high speed pursuit and caused a vehicle operated by Provincial Constable A.V. LLOYL) to swerve to avoid a collision on Younge Street in Walkerton.

4. On the night of 26th March, 1984, Police Constable Alan Wilson of the Chesley Police Force was on duty in a marked police vehicle with roof light and siren.

5. As he was completing his work with a traffic violator he observed a car travelling at a fast rate of speed southbound on the main street in Chesley.

6. Constable Wilson took up pursuit and followed it from Chesley, along County Road ly to one concession outside Walkerton.

7. He followed it tor some 22 kilometers with his vehicle travelling at speeds of 16U kilometers per hour.

8. The speed limit on County Road 19 was 80 kilometers per hour.

9. Constable Wilson was not getting closer to the vehicle being pursued and so radioed for a road block and assistance.

10. Constable A. Lloyd of the Walkerton Detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police was proceeding home, travelling north on Younge after completion of his three to eleven shift in the evening of the 2bth March, 1984- when he was forced to swerve his vehicle to the right to avoid another vehicle travelling south on Younge Street.

11. Constable Lloyd spun his own car around and proceeded after the vehicle that had forced him to swerve. At the junction of Younge and Jackson he pulled beside the vehicle when he recognized Constable Reidl as the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle.

12. Other evidence was accepted that this was the same car and driver pursued by Constable Wilson of the Chesley Police Force.

13. The appeal was based on the following grounds:

14. The Staff Superintendent erred in convicting the Appellant when the evidence of the conduct of the Appellant did not establish that the Appellant had acted in a disorderly manner.

15. The Staff Superintendent erred in convicting the Appellant in view of the discrepancies contained in the evidence of the witnesses who testified at the hearing.

16. The evidence of Constable Lloyd was that he probably would have laid charges under the Highway Traffic Act it the driver had not been a police officer in a police vehicle. It seems to me that such a course of action would have been more appropriate.

17. Nevertheless it is an appeal against charges laid under the Police Act with which I must deal.

18. Counsel for the appellant argued that the conduct of Constable Reidl could not be considered as disorderly under the definition of "disorderly" as defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. I, however, have turned to Volume III of the 1933 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary where I found the adjective "disorderly" defined as follows:

"2. Opposed to or violating moral order, constituted authority, or recognized rule or method; not submissive to rule, lawless; unruly; tumultuous, riotous."

17. I find no difficulty in bringing the conduct of a police officer whose action brings about a high speed pursuit, who travels at a high rate of speed well over the lawful limit, and causes approaching traffic to take evasive action to avoid collision within the meaning of "violating constituted authority or recognized rule or method".

18. Counsel for the appellant also contended that there was a conflict of evidence concerning speed and a skid mark. If, indeed, there was a conflict it seemed on my reading of the evidence to be of slight importance and far from the degree that would be necessary to upset the decision of the hearing officer.

19. The penalty imposed was that of a "reprimand". Counsel for the respondent argued that this was only a "token punishment" and this tribunal should increase it in view of the public policy to discourage high speed pursuits And in view of the traffic violations involved.

20. As stated earlier, I would have preferred that this matter had been heard by a Provincial Court Judge by a charge under The Highway Traffic Act where the same penalty could have been imposed as faced by a civilian driver. Since this was not done I hesitate to interfere with the penalty.

21. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm the penalty imposed.

DATED at the City of Toronto in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, this 19th day of February, A.D., 1985.

John P. MacBeth, Q.C. Vice Chairman