ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
CONSTABLE ANDREW WALKER
Appellant
-and-
METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE
Respondent
DECISION
Panel: Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member
Julio Menezes, Member
Hearing Date: March 8, 1989
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
Presiding Members:
Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member
Julio Menezes, Member
Appearances:
John Swaigen, Counsel for the police force
Harold Dale, Counsel for Appellant
Staff Inspector Crampton for the Force
Hearing Date: March 8, 1989
- Constable Walker was charged with insubordinationand neglect of duty contrary to Section l(b)(ii) and Sectionl(c)(i) respectively of the Code of Offences. These chargeswere particularized as follows:
"Being a member of the Metropolitan Toronto PoliceForce attached to Number 42 Division, you on Tuesday, June l7th, l986 were working the 7:l5 a.m.to 5:l5 p.m. relief. You were assigned to uniformduties in Scout Car 4207.
At about 4:55 p.m. on said date, the radio dispatcher directed an emergency call to Scout Car4207. "A child with scissors stuck in her head." You received this radio call in your car and saidto the dispatcher: "Yeah, I'm off in fifteenminutes, dispatch."
The dispatcher then advised you that the wholedivision was off in fifteen minutes and that there was no one else to go.
You replied: "Yeah, you should have an afternoon,uh, unit."
This conversation was overheard by Police Constables Russell McCormick #4486 and Garry (sic)Court #919, operating Scout Car 4303, resulting inthe said officers accepting the detail and advisingthe dispatcher: "If 42 Division will not attend a child with scissors stuck in her head, then 43
Division will."
It was conceded by Mr. Dale for the Appellant that there was no dispute on the facts and it would appear to us that the Statement of Particulars contains an accurate recitation of all the salient facts.
At the trial before the Hearing Officer, Constable Larry Webb testified that he was parked in an unmarked radar car adjacent to the appellant at the time,. The call came at about 4:55 p.m. on June l7th. He testified that ConstableWalker drove off immediately upon the call being heard. Before he left Constable Walker told him that he had to go to the call.
Testifying in his own defence, Constable Walker indicated that the conversation specified in the particulars took place as he was driving to the call and that although he did not activate the "Accept Detail" button on his vehicle's communication radio, nor did he advise the dispatcher, in his own mind he did not refuse the detail.
Constable Walker was found guilty in respect of both charges. The Board however, on appeal confirmed the conviction for the charge of neglect of duty reducing the penalty from a forfeiture of eight days off to a forfeiture of six days off. The Board quashed the conviction on the charge of insubordination.
We have carefully considered the arguments advanced
by the appellant but we are unable to find in those arguments any basis to disturb the conclusion of the Board on appeal. The appellant in this matter was charged with the offence of neglect of duty which is particularized in an allegation that he failed to respond to a call. Notwithstanding the appellant's testimony that he immediately left a parked position to commence his response and notwithstanding the corroboration of that position provided by the testimony of Constable Webb, the fact remains that Constable Walker did not do on that occasion all that his duty required him to do.
That duty requires him to acknowledge the call, if unoccupied accept the detail in the prescribed fashion and proceed without hesitation to the emergent situation. If the dispatcher does not know that the officer has accepted the detail the dispatcher is likely to send other officers to the scene needlessly. The diligent prosecution of his duty - that is, the absence of neglect of duty - requires him to proceed in the fashion described by Staff Inspector Cramptonin his submission to the trier of fact: " ... that there should be no hesitation. It (the response) should have been instantaneous: A.D. button pressed, on the way, sirens blazing, headlights going, red lights going." The failure to respond to a dispatch call for an emergency such as this in such a manner in every respect is neglect of duty.
Having so concluded, we are of the view that thepenalty imposed by the Board in reducing that penalty is inthe very least appropriate considering Constable Walker'spersonnel record and woefully inadequate were it not for thatrecord.
Appeal dismissed.
DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY, 1989.
______________________________________W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman
for Frank Marc D'Andrea and Julio Menezes