ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
SERGEANT P.P. HRYCYSCHYN
Appellant
-and-
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
Respondent
DECISION
Panel:
W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman
Karl R. Fuller, Member
Hearing Date: April l6, l993
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
Karl R. Fuller, Member
Appearances:
Michael Temple for the Appellant
Sergeant P.P. Hrycyschyn in Person
John Zarudny and Inspector Bryon Brown for the OPP
Hearing Date: April l6, l993
[1]. This is an appeal from the penalty imposed uponSergeant Hrycyschyn when he pleaded guilty to a disciplineoffence which flowed from the fact that he had been found guilty under the Criminal Code of participating in an illegalscheme contrary to Section 206(l)(e) of the Criminal Code.
The Facts:
[2]. Sergeant Hrycyschyn had invested $l00 in a pyramidscheme which, he hoped, would yield him some $800. He claims not to have known that the scheme was unlawful. In the criminal court he pleaded guilty; the Presiding Judge granteda discharge. In the discipline proceeding SergeantHrycyschyn pleaded guilty again. Some evidence was called with respect to pyramid schemes and that evidence indicatedthat not only are pyramid schemes unlawful but the commonoffice betting pool on sports events is similarly unlawful.
The Penalty:
[3]. The penalty imposed was a reduction in gradation ofrank from Sergeant S.G. 0l to S.G. 02 for a period of oneyear. The salary differential between these two designationsis approximately $4,000.
[4]. The appellant argues that the appropriate penaltyis a loss of pay to a maximum of 5 days. It would appear from the evidence that SergeantHrycyschyn attended some meetings of the group involved in apyramid scheme and was encouraged to seek other participants.
[5]. There is no evidence, however, that he did seek otherparticipants in the scheme.
[6]. In our view the Hearing Officer quite properlydistinguished this offence from some other criminal codeconvictions in cases where officers have been convicted of impaired driving or petty theft. In our view this offence can be characterized as a gambling offence. Gambling is notprohibited per se in our society, but rather is a regulatedactivity. Government not only regulate gambling but participate directly through lotteries and, in the nearfuture, casinos. The essence of all organized gambling isthe same as the essence of pyramid schemes to whit that manypeople lose money to the benefit of a few "winners". Sergeant Hrycyschyn participated in a prohibited form ofgambling.
[7]. Sergeant Hrycyschyn joined the police force in l969and has an unblemished record save only for having beencensored in l989 for some impropriety. This is a difficult case in which to assess an appropriate penalty because, sofar as we can find, there are no previous cases which wemight use as a guide. The Hearing Officer weighed all theappropriate considerations and quite properly pointed outthat this offence is distinguishable from other minor criminal offences which have been dealt with in the past.
[8]. In our opinion the proper approach to take is toestimate the penalty that might be paid by a civilian with noprevious misconduct on his or her record and then to add tothat an increase in the penalty because of the fact that thisperson is a police officer and then to add further because ofthe fact that this individual is a sergeant. The higher therank the higher are the expectations.
[9]. This conduct constitutes an embarrassment to the police force but also an embarrassment to the officer.Sergeant Hrycyschyn has pointed to us, however, that theembarrassment for a sergeant is greater than would be theembarrassment for a constable.
[10]. With respect to the damage done to SergeantHrycyschyn's moral authority over his subordinates we noteparticularly that he has the strength of character to pleadguilty to the criminal offence and to plead guilty to thediscipline offence. His only concern is to find the appropriate penalty; he freely concedes that some penaltymust be paid.
Decision:
[11]. In sum then we feel that a financial penalty ofslightly more than $4,000 (reduction in gradation of rank forl2 months) is too heavy and accordingly we quash the penaltyimposed and substitute a penalty of the loss of five days'pay and a reprimand.
[12]. Finally, we want to make it clear that by modifyingthe penalty we do not in any way imply a criticism of thedecision of the Hearing Officer. As we said earlier, thiscase is without precedent and establishing the appropriatepenalty is not an easy task.
DATED THIS 3RD DAY OF MAY, 1993.
per W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman