ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
SERGEANT ALLAN T. COOK
Appellant
-and-
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
Respondent
DECISION
Panel: W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman
G. Normand Glaude, Member
Hearing Date: Monday, October l6, l989
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 of a conviction where in the appellant, Sergeant Allan T. Cook, of the Hailey bury Detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police, was found guilty of neglect of duty for neglecting or omitting to promptly and diligently perform his duty without lawful excuse, contrary to Section l(c)(i) of the Code of Offences, Regulation 79l under the Police Act, R.S.O. l980, C. 38l.
The facts are not in dispute.
At l2:l5 a.m. on June 24, l988 two on duty juniorofficers, Provincial Constable Bedard and Provincial Constable Pothier approached a parked vehicle on the side of the road.
It turned out that the occupant of the vehicle was one Provincial Constable Langlois, who was off duty. As a result of having a flashlight pointed in his face, Provincial Constable Langlois began to scuffle with Provincial Constable Bedard. As a result of this scuffle, Provincial Constable Bedard received a small scrape on his arm and lost a button from his shirt.
During their conversation with Provincial Constable Langlois, the officers determined that Langlois was not impaired by alcohol, but was distraught.
Following this incident, the two officers returned to the detachment office and related the incident to Provincial Constable Parker, a senior officer. Sergeant Cook was called in. He proceeded to calm the officers and instructed them to write out incident reports.
Sergeant Cook, in the company of Provincial
Constable Parker, left the station and went to Provincial
Constable Langlois' home. They saw the constable's truck in
the driveway, noted that the lights were all out, that no
sound was coming from the home, and concluded that Constable
Langlois was in bed.
Sergeant Cook and Provincial Constable Parker then drove to the scene of the scuffle to ensure that no one had remained behind.
They then returned to check Langlois' home and found all to be quiet. Sergeant Cook then reviewed the incident reports prepared by the officers and at l:30 a.m. sealed the reports, leaving a note for Staff Sergeant Shearer informing him of the incident and advising him that he would be in to discuss the matter at 8:00 a.m. Sergeant Cook went off duty at 2:00 a.m. and returned to the Langlois residence to ensure once again that all was quiet.
At the outset, counsel for the respondent
acknowledged that the fact that Sergeant Cook did not
immediately call Staff Sergeant Shearer was not sufficient to
sustain this conviction.
In fact, the respondent contends that the offence of neglect of duty occurred when Sergeant Cook failed to go to the Langlois residence and confront him with the allegations being brought forward by the two officers.
Sergeant Cook in his defence, indicated that he knew that an internal investigation would follow and felt that the allegations and reports being completed by his officers were sufficient to complete this investigation.
Sergeant Cook felt that confronting Provincial Constable Langlois in the early morning hours would have accomplished nothing other than to rouse four young boys and possibly fuel a domestic dispute.
The respondent submitted that in not confronting the Constable, Sergeant Cook was neglectful in not completing the investigation. Counsel indicated that Sergeant Cook's actions might well have amounted to denying Constable Langlois a possible defence. The respondent gives as example the scenario wherein Provincial Constable Langlois would have denied ever being in a scuffle and offering an alibi. In that scenario, Sergeant Cook would have been able to continue his investigation by speaking with Mrs. Langlois and checking Provincial Constable Langlois' truck to determine if the engine was warm.
In determining this type of matter, regard must be had to all of the circumstances. Firstly, this is a small detachment with all of the officers being familiar with each other. Sergeant Cook knew Provincial Constable Langlois and knew of the personal problems the officer was having as a result of his mother's ill health.
Secondly, Sergeant Cook is an experienced officer, and was described by his Staff Sergeant as being very conscientious both as an officer and as a supervisor.
Thirdly, Sergeant Cook proceeded with the investigation by having his officers prepare the appropriate reports. He then left to investigate Provincial Constable Langlois' situation. Both he and Provincial Constable Parker determined the Provincial Constable Langlois was asleep, that conclusion having been reached after attending at the home and looking for lights and listening for sounds from the home. In determining that Provincial Constable Langlois was asleep, Sergeant Cook satisfied himself that Provincial Constable Langlois and his family were not in any danger nor was the incident ongoing. Sergeant Cook returned on two other occasions in the early morning of June 24th, l988. He then re-attended at the detachment at 8:00 a.m. to speak with Staff Sergeant Shearer.
Any order to a police officer must be read in light of the preamble to the Police Orders which includes: "something must be left to the intelligence and individual discretion of police officers". A second sentence says "members are expected to interpret Police Orders reasonably and with due regard for the best interest of the force".
In the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that Sergeant Cook having been faced with the facts as he found them on the night in question, investigated this matter with the due diligence that was expected of him and further, properly exercised his discretion in not confronting Provincial Constable Langlois in the early morning of June 24th, l988.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.
DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1989.
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman
for himself and G. Normand Glaude