ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
JOHN WALKER Complainant
-and-
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE FOR THE TOWN OF PARIS Respondent
DECISION
Panel: W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member
Hearing Date: Friday, March 30, l990
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
Appearances:
John Walker and Robert Walker (brother) Paul James, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Police for the Town of Paris Robert Mitchell, Chief of Police for the Town of Paris Constable David Maxwell, Paris Police Force
Presiding Members:
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member
Hearing Date: Friday, March 30, l990
1Mr. Walker's complaint is in essence an allegation that the Paris Police Force is incompetent.
2At the time of these events, July of l988, the Paris Police Force was composed of l2 officers. Chief Mitchell had been appointed in the late Spring of the same year. He had previously served as Chief of Police in the Town of Mitchell and prior to that was an officer with the Peterborough Police Force where he had had much experience as an investigator.
3Mr. Walker lives with his mother and a brother (not the brother who appeared before us) in a single-family dwelling in the Town of Paris. The Walker home is located on the bank of the Grand River. This is a very steep bank which falls away a short distance to the rear of their home.
4The incidents giving rise to this complaint begin on July 6th of l988 and continue until approximately the end of that month. There were some 58 complaints made to the police force and other incidents where no complaint was filed. All incidents allege that a stone or stones were thrown or launched by means of a slingshot. The stones or "rocks" are described by Mr. Walker as being perhaps one andone-half inches in diameter. Many of the missiles struck persons upon the Walker property; many of them did damage to the house.
5The damages include broken windows, chipped glass, dented siding, broken doors, etc. The rocks were launched from somewhere to the rear of the house. The river bank previously mentioned is very heavily covered with foliage in the summertime and it would be almost impossible for one standing at the top of the bank to see anyone in the brush below.
6The efforts made by the Paris Police Force to locate the culprit include the use of an OPP tracking dog on four occasions; six to eight occasions of physical surveillance involving local officers and members of the OPP, and surveillance cameras were set up and run for approximately five days until the local newspaper carried story disclosing their whereabouts. The police allege that it was Mr. Walker who advised the news industry of the presence of the cameras. Many neighbours assisted by keeping watch at various times. The police investigation included the interviewing of thirty-eight neighbours and many other persons who were drivers or passengers in motor vehicles passing by.
7The police investigation included l00 hours of overtime by the Paris Police Department and ll0 hours contributed by the OPP.
8Before going further we wish to congratulate Chief Mitchell for seeking the assistance of the Provincial Police Force. Many police chiefs are reticent to ask for assistance from another police force in all but the most extreme situations. Chief Mitchell does not suffer from that handicap.
9Throughout the investigation there was only one person charged with any offence. John Joseph Grant Bodnar was charged with assault and also with public mischief. The charges proceeded to trial and Mr. Bodnar was acquitted. Mr. Bodnar is a very close friend of Mr. John Walker, the complainant. Mr. Walker complains that Mr. Bodnar ought not to have been charged. With respect to this complaint we note that the Justice of the Peace who accepted the charges obviously felt that the evidence was sufficient to institute proceedings; the Crown Attorney who prosecuted the matter obviously believed that the evidence was sufficient to justify a trial.
10One of Mr. Walker's complaints is that a person who is employed with the Brantford Hospital was aware of the date of this hearing before he had received notification. For this we must apologize to Mr. Walker. Notice of hearing is given by mail to both parties at the same time but, of course, the notice will not necessarily arrive at both locations on the same day. We ask that Chief Mitchell caution his officers about gossip. Paris is a small town and loose talk about even such inconsequential and non confidential matters as the date of a hearing can prove embarrassing to some people.
11Mr. Walker complains that the police investigation was inadequate. He suggests that a police chief when appointed ought to be competent or at least ought to be provided with appropriate training. We, of course, agree with this proposition. But Mr. Walker has presented nothing to suggest that Chief Mitchell is less than competent.
12One is driven to wonder why these incidents stopped as suddenly as they had begun. One wonders whether the cause might be the laying of charges against Mr. Bodnar, the publicity provided by the local newspaper, or the obviously unrestrained efforts of the police force to locate the perpetrator.
13Chief Mitchell filed a letter addressed to him by Inspector E.N. McPhail of the Ontario Provincial Police #3 District Headquarters. Inspector McPhail and Chief Mitchell had not previously known one another. Inspector McPhail's letter reads as follows:
"Further to assistance rendered to your Force in relationship to this complaint, I reiterate that in 33 years of police experience, I have never seen this amount of resources spent on an occurrence of this magnitude."
"I am unable to envision anything you could have reasonably done that was not undertaken in an effort to solve this problem."
14We concur with Inspector McPhail and cannot see what more the police might have done in their efforts to locate a suspect. Chief Mitchell not only deployed the resources of his own force but asked for and was given assistance by the OPP.
15We find the complaint to be unfounded.
DATED THIS 1st DAY OF APRIL, 1990.
per
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman