ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
Constable Gary Mountjoy
Appellant
-and-
Metropolitan Toronto Police Force
Respondent
DECISION
Panel: W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member
Hearing Date: March l5, 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:
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member
Appearances:
Harold Dale, Counsel for Appellant Constable Gary Mountjoy
John Swaigen, Counsel for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Staff Inspector W.R. Crampton
Date: March l5, 1989
- Constable Mountjoy appeals the penalty imposed following his conviction on two counts of discreditable conduct. The penalty imposed was reduction in gradation of rank to the level of Third Class Constable with a recommendation that Constable Mountjoy spend a minimum of one year at each gradation of rank before being returned to that of a First Class Constable. In addition, the hearing officer ordered performance evaluations at three month intervals and that increase in gradation of rank depend upon the recommendation of the unit commander based on the Constable's performance and conduct.
The Charges:
Constable Mountjoy was charged with providing false information to investigating officers who were investigating a friend of his.
The second count relates to the Constable having endorsed a passport application indicating that he had known the applicant for a period of three years when in fact he had not.
The Facts:
Constable Mountjoy was asked to assist a female friend of his who told him that she was being investigated for fraud and therefore was required to explain a $l,000 deposit to her bank account. She indicated that the $l,000 had been a gift from a male associate but that she could not identify him because he was a married man with a family and a high-profile figure in the community. Constable
Mountjoy agreed to her request and accordingly advised her solicitor and the investigating officers that he in fact had loaned her the $l,000 when in fact he had not. It must be noted that the investigating officers put before Mountjoy the evidence which they had gathered in connection with the alleged fraud that he "came clean" and told the truth. He also advised the woman's solicitor that he had in fact not loaned or given any money to her.
With respect to the second count, Constable Mountjoy was asked by a very close friend to endorse a passport application on behalf of a third party. Constable Mountjoy endorsed the passport application as a police officer indicating that he had known the applicant for a period of three years. He had met the applicant a few times but certainly had not known him for three years. At the time of these events Constable Mountjoy had been a police officer for approximately l5 years.
The Penalty:
The hearing officer, Superintendent Bernard E. Nadeau, considered very carefully all the relevant factors which ought to be considered in imposing penalty. In our view he gave appropriate weight both to the mitigating factors and to the very serious nature of the offences. At one point he said "were it not for your excellent service record I would have no hesitation in dismissing you from the force". If Superintendent Nadeau had done so, we would uphold that penalty. However, the hearing officer found that Mountjoy had been "duped by friends that you trusted" and that "all of your problems in these charges resulted from your poor judgement".
We find the penalty imposed very modest in view of the very serious nature of the offences. Either offence standing alone would, in our view, justify dismissal.
However, since the hearing officer characterized the conduct as serious errors in judgement, and since he imposed a close monitoring system upon Constable Mountjoy, and further since we find no error in the way the hearing officer approached the imposition of penalty, we will let it stand.
For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed and the penalty confirmed.
DATED THIS 22ND DATE OF MARCH, 1989.
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman for himself and Frank Marc D'Andrea.