Provincial Constable S.T. Keefe v. Ontario Provincial Police, 1989 CanLII 6721

1Provincial Constable Keefe was charged with discreditable conduct - major. He appeals from the findingof guilt and the penalty imposed. The charge was particularized as follows:

During the period December of l986 to March ofl987, in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Provincial ConstableKeefe did engage in a sexual relationship with al4-year old female person.

2Provincial Constable Keefe was found guilty of thecharge and sentenced to resign from the force. He has appealed against the conviction and sentence.

Grounds of Appeal:

The Presiding Officer erred:

1. In finding that the appellant engaged in a sexual relationship during the period December l986 to Marchl987.

2. In failing to find under all of the circumstances thatthe conduct of the appellant was not discreditable.

3.In failing to take into account the fact that theappellant's ability to perform his duties had never beenquestioned prior to the hearing of the charge.

4. In failing to take into account that the appellant hadsuccessfully defended himself against a criminal chargeand had taken every step possible to avoid undue publicity.

5. In failing to consider that a lapse of moral judgement bya qualified professional person does not necessarily meanthat that person has discredited his profession.

6. Such other grounds as Counsel may advise.

3Provincial Constable Keefe was charged with sexualassault, contrary to Section 246.l of the Criminal Code. He was acquitted of the charge by Judge J.A. Hoolihan on thegrounds that there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubtthat the fourteen year old had not consented to the sexualcontacts between herself and the accused. The transcript ofthe criminal trial was admitted into evidence at the Police Act hearing, with Provincial Constable Keefe's consent.

4We fail to perceive any errors in the conclusionsdrawn by the Hearing Officer, Superintendent R.H. Hodgson,from the evidence before him. The common elements in the testimony of the girl, "K.L." and the accused very clearlyindicate discreditable conduct. The basis of JudgeHoolihan's decision for acquittal on a criminal charge doesnot provide a defence to the charge under the Police Act.There was no finding in the criminal trial that the girl hadconsented to the physical contacts with Provincial ConstableKeefe.

5We were urged to analogize the appellant's actionsto that of members of other professions engaging in culpableactivities. We are not persuaded that this would be helpful.

6The Hearing Officer was quite correct in concluding that theconduct the appellant engaged in is contrary to society'sexpectations of a thirty-two year old man.

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Penalty:

7The appellant has conceded some error. He also cooperated to minimize the further discomfort to "K.L." andher family by not forcing her into having to testify oncemore at the hearing. However, this is the least that afamily that has shown him a great deal of kindness deserved.

8The Hearing Officer was correct in stating thatthis offence on its own renders Provincial Constable Keefe unsuitable to continue as a member of the force. As a result of a previous, unrelated, occurrence Provincial ConstableKeefe has a criminal conviction and a Police Act conviction,both related to the same occurrence. penalty. For the above reasons we dismiss the appeal against.