<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
**IN THE MATTER OF** The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
<!--mc:open:cover-parties-->
**BETWEEN:**
<!--mc:close:cover-parties-->
CONSTABLE JOHN WATSON
Appellant
-and-
WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE FORCE
Respondent
---
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
DECISION
**Panel:**
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman
Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member
**Hearing Date:** 31 January 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
31 January 1989
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman
Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member
**Appearances:**
Eric Hafemann for Constable Watson
Constable John Watson in person
Elmer Moore, Esq., for the Board of Commissioners of Police for the Region of Waterloo
Staff Inspector Wayne Hodgkiss
---
[1]. Reduction in gradation of rank from First Class Constable to Fourth Class Constable – High
[2]. This hearing arose as an appeal from the penalty imposed upon Constable Watson following his plea of guilty to a charge of discreditable conduct in that he had been found guilty of impaired driving, an offence punishable under the [Criminal Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html), contrary to Section l(a)(vii) of the Code of Offences, Regulation 79l/80, made pursuant to the Police Act and did thereby commit a major offence.
[3]. The facts of the offence are at the higher end of the scale of seriousness for drinking/driving offences. The driving was dangerous, to say the least, the impairment obvious, and blood alcohol readings of 230 milligrams per cent and 220 milligrams per cent were taken. It should be noted that Constable Watson was off duty and driving a private motor vehicle at the time of the offence.
[4]. While a Probationary Constable, in l977, Constable Watson was convicted of a major offence and his probation period was extended; in l978 he was convicted of a minor offence and the penalty imposed was l day. The latter offence was for failing to appear in court.
[5]. Constable Watson is an admitted alcoholic and it is further admitted that his performance for the last several years has been far below his potential. It is agreed that Constable Watson has the potential to be a superior officer but has been falling very far short of that potential. Immediately following the events in question Constable Watson sought treatment for the disease of alcoholism and has not consumed any alcohol since.
[6]. We agree with the local board of commissioners of police when they say that it is regrettable that an employee assistance program was not in operation prior to the offence that gives rise to these proceedings.
[7]. It was urged upon us that the penalty imposed upon Constable Watson is out of line with the penalties imposed earlier by other police forces for similar offences. Accepting that that is the case we believe that there are very good reasons for this change in policy and change in attitude. In recent times the public's attitude toward drinking/driving offences has changed radically. The public is no longer prepared to treat drinking and driving as a minor slip or a minor offence. In view of this change in public attitude, the police forces of Ontario have changed their attitude with respect to the severity of these offences and we can but applaud them for that. It is our view that this is a very serious offence and demands a very serious penalty. Viewing only the offence, the failure to perform to a level anywhere near potential, and the fact that Constable Watson suffers from the disease of alcoholism, the matter would appear to call for dismissal. There are, however, some mitigating factors.
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## Mitigating Factors:
[8]. Constable Watson has been a police officer for approximately l2 years; he has the potential to be a superior police officer; the offence was committed while Constable Watson was off duty and driving a private motor vehicle and there was, fortunately, no collision. We give particular and significant weight to the fact that Constable Watson now has faced up to the reality of his disease, has sought treatment and is today a non-drinking alcoholic. We are advised that Constable Watson's performance is improving. In imposing penalty upon Constable Watson's appeal, the local board of commissioners of police had this to say:
> "For the foregoing reasons we confirm the penalty f the Hearing Officer as confirmed by the Chief ofPolice with two modifications. Firstly, because the demotion carries with it a substantial financial penalty and the "significant statement of the department" remains intact, the reduction in rank will be to Fourth Class (High). Constable Watson will serve six months in that rank. Secondly, bearing in mind that Constable Watson's licence will be reinstated on September llth, l988, the Board is requesting an assessment of Constable Watson's interim performance for consideration at its September Board Meeting. At this meeting, the Board will consider whether to take action under the provision of sub-section (7) of Sec. 4 of Regulation 792, under the Police Act."
[9]. As we read the above quoted decision, we understand that Constable Watson has been reduced to the rank of Fourth Class Constable (High) for a period of six months and further that, based upon performance appraisals, the local board is prepared to abridge the time periods for reclassification which are specified in Section 4 of Regulation 792 and in particular that they are prepared to exercise jurisdiction under sub-section 7 of that section. We find it entirely appropriate for such assessment to be made at six month intervals and for Constable Watson to be reclassified at six months intervals dependent, of course, upon his performance and his abstention from alcohol.
SIGNED THIS 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 1989.
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C.
for himself and Frank D'Andrea.
minicounsel