Constable Samuel J. Baird v. Ontario Provincial Police, 1988 CanLII 6675

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 SAMUEL

DECISION

Panel: Wendy L. Calder, Vice Chairman

Jennifer F. Lynch, Member

Hearing Date: Wednesday, November 18th, 1987

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:

Wendy L. Calder, Vice Chairman

Jennifer F. Lynch, Member

Appearances:

W. Michael Temple, Esq., Q.C.

Counsel for the Appellant

The Appellant

Inspector W. M. Wilkinson Ontario Provincial Police

Dennis W. Brown, Esq., Q.C. Counsel for the Respondent

Inspector John Mitchell

Date: Wednesday, November 18th, 1987

Wendy L. Calder, Vice Chairman

1. Constable S. J. Baird of the Ontario Provincial Police was charged with a Major Offence "Discreditable Conduct" in that he did act in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Ontario Provincial Police Force contrary to Section 1 (a)(i) of the Code of Offences contained in Regulation 7H1 made under the Police Act. Constable Baird pleaded not guilty.

2. The Statement of Particulars reads as follows:

On September 12, 1986 in Wallaston Township,

Hastings County, you were found to be carrying a

loaded firearm in your vehicle for the purpose of

hunting at night and were in possession of an open

bottle of liquor, both acts being a violation of aProvincial Statute. The charge was heard by Staff Superintendent

H.T.

Carry on the 18th of December 1986.

1. The decision was that Constable Samuel J. Baird be required to resign, and in default of resigning within seven days to be summarily dismissed from the force.

2. Particulars:

3. On September 12th, Game and Fish Conservation Officers, Brinkman and Trotter of the Ministry of Natural Resources were on "jacklight" patrol in South Gawalski Township. A slow moving vehicle, a half-ton truck was observed by Brinkman and Trotter going into the Gutt Conservation area. The Conservation Officers waited for the truck to come out and it stopped. Brinkman and Trotter went to the truck and each opened a door. The driver was identified as Samuel J. Baird and the passenger was identified as Raymond Marwick.

4. There was an opened gun case and a rifle near Marwiek and on the floor a large flashlight with either a 12 or 6 volt battery. Constable Baird had a shotgun in his hand. There was an open bottle of liquor on the seat between them. The firearms were seized at the scene and receipts given to the men.

5. Constable Baird was served with a Provincial Offences Notice dated September 12th. It reads "No person shall hunt any animal or bird between one-half hour after sunset and one-half hour before sunrise of any day. Constable Ra i rcl pled guilty and paid the fine.

6. There was an opened gun case and a rifle near Marwiek and on the floor a large flashlight with either a 12 or 6 volt battery. Constable Baird had a shotgun in his hand. There was an open bottle of liquor on the seat between them. The firearms were seized at the scene and receipts given to the men.

7. Constable Baird was served with a Provincial Offences Notice dated September 12th. It reads "No person shall hunt any animal or bird between one-half hour after sunset and one-half hour before sunrise of any day. Constable Ra i rcl pled guilty and paid the fine. Also introduced into evidence was:-

Exhibit No. 9 - Offence Notice

Exhibit No. 10 - Map by Samuel Baird

Exhibit No. 11 - Letter of Censure

Exhibit No. 12 - Letter of Censure

Exhibit No. .13 - Charge Sheet - Discreditable Conduct

Exhibit No. 14 - Charge Sheet - Discreditable Conduct

8. The appeal to the Ontario Police Commission was

based on the following grounds:

1. The Staff Superintendent erred in holding that the

appellant was carrying a loaded firearm in his

vehicle for the purpose of hunting at night.

2. The Staff Superintendent erred in holding that the

appellant was in possession of an open bottle of

1iquor.

3. The Staff Superintendent erred in holding that the

gravity of the offence was sufficient to require the

resignation or dismissal of the appellant.

4. The Staff Superintendent erred in failing to take

into account all of the circumstances relating to

the previous record of the appellant.

9. Mr. Temple cited many sections of the February 26th, 1987 transcript to support his appeal argument. HE concluded by suggesting the penalty of dismissal was too severe and we should allow the appeal and vary the penalty imposed. Mr. Temple cited cases to uphold his submission.

10. Mr. Brown in defence of the charge stated Constable Baird knew of the open liquor bottle and was indeed hunting at night. There had been jacklighting in the area and there had been arrests so there was game in the area. Constable Baird must have been on the road at that time of night for some reason. Constable Baird was a trapper and hunter.

11. There was contradictory evidence as Constable Baird said he was looking for dogs, yet his passenger did not comment on dogs.

12. Constable Baird's explanation he was looking for dogs was not explained to the Conservation Officers when they first approached the man.

13. This tribunal believes there was sufficient evidence from the Conservation Officers to support the fact there was a loaded firearn, a large flashlight and an open bottle of liq

14. Mr. Temple suggested the penalty was too severe under the circumstances. In fact it was the culminating incident of five incidents beginning in 1978 including impaired driving and alcohol related incidents. It showed a wilful disregard for the law by a veteran police officer who should be setting a high standard of conduct. An officer is set apart from the public because of the authority his position commands and by the very nature of his/her calling he/she must live up to greater expectations. It is required he/she demonstrate a code of conduct that is consistent with his/her position.

15. Nothing in Officer Baird's previous record can wipe out the fact that violations of the Provincial Statutes and Criminal Code occurred on a regular basis.

16. The evidence indicates the previous sanctions that were applied to Constable Baird with a view to improving and restructuring his conduct were without effect.

For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and penalty upheld.

DATED at the City of Toronto in the Munioipa 1 i t.y of Metro,-

politan Toronto, this 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, A.D. 1988

Wendy L. Calder

Vice Chairman

F. Jennifer Lynch

Member