ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
SERGEANT A. VANDERWOUDE
Appellant
-and-
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
Respondent
DECISION
Panel: W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman
Karl R. Fuller, Member
Hearing Date: Tuesday, June l5, 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:
W. Michael Temple, Q.C., Counsel for the Appellant
Sergeant A. Vanderwoude, Appellant
John P. Zarudny, Counsel for the O.P.P.
Inspector Bryon Brown for the O.P.P.
Hearing Date: Tuesday, June l5, l993
- Sergeant Vanderwoude appealed the conviction ofneglect of duty and the loss of four days pay. The conviction and penalty were imposed by an O.P.P. Adjudicatoron May 23rd, l992 following a hearing pursuant to Sectionl(a)(i) of the Code of Offences in Regulation 79l under thePolice Act.
The Facts:
The charge in this case alleges that on the nightof June l2-l3, l99l being the on-call Supervisor at theLancaster Detachment, Sergeant Vanderwoude failed to placehimself on duty and take charge of an occurrence in whichthree young men were reported to have been overdue from afishing trip on the St. Lawrence River in the LancasterDetachment area. rough at that time.The winds were strong and the waters were The father of one of the missing boaters, Mr.Sauve, made a number of contacts to the O.P.P. CommunicationsCentre. The Centre conveyed the information to ConstableShouldice of the Lancaster Detachment who then informed
Sergeant Vanderwoude by telephone at his residence. The O.P.P. did not have a boat in the Lancaster area, the nearestmarine unit was out of service. The Canadian Coast Guard is not only well suited for such search and rescue missions butin fact holds legal responsibility for doing so on the St.Lawrence Waterway. Sergeant Vanderwoude instructed ConstableShouldice to ensure that the Coast Guard was in fact conducting a search; he requested to be kept informed shouldany change in the status of the investigation occur.
There appeared to be a great deal of communityconcern and attempts to find the young men continued throughthe night. The level of anxiety within the community canwell be understood.
Mr. Zarudny, Counsel for the O.P.P. argued thatSergeant Vanderwoude should have considered himself on dutyand should have taken charge of the investigation. He suggested that parents should have been notified and keptinformed of any developments. He also stated that arrangements should have been made for additional staff tosearch the shorelines. It is the Sergeant's failure to leavehis home and to take charge of the investigation that formsthe basis of the charge. appropriateMr. Temple for the appellant, suggested that it was for Sergeant Vanderwoude to rely on the supervision being exercised by the Communication Centre andthat it was reasonable for the Sergeant to assume that theCoast Guard Search and Rescue team were capable of carryingout the operation. The appellant's counsel also drew attention to Part l0, Section l72 of Standing Orders dealingwith Search and Rescue which indicates that the responsibility for search and rescue on "International Waterways" (including the St. Lawrence Waterways) is theresponsibility of the Canadian Forces Rescue CoordinationCentre and the Canadian Coast Guard. The Federal authorities were in fact conducting a search and sometime during thenight had asked the Lancaster O.P.P. Detachment to search astretch of highway for them (approximately l2 kilometers).That search was conducted by one of the constables on duty.
Reasons for Decision:
The occurrence which forms the basis for the complaint against Sergeant Vanderwoude has a most unfortunateending. The youngsters perished in the stormy waters and wecan understand the extent of anguish which struck the parents, friends and the community. The incident must have caused a great deal of introspective review and assessment.Some may have even felt that things would have ended on amore positive note had the Sergeant only left his home,arrived on the scene and had taken command of the search.
We note that in testimony, the Canadian Coast Guardconfirmed that it is their responsibility to carry out thesearch and that they prefer that the O.P.P. do not assist inthe search of the waters as their equipment is inadequate forthe purpose.
Having considered all the circumstances we are notconvinced that Sergeant Vanderwoude's physical presence onthe scene would have effected the unfortunate outcome in any way. He was off duty at the time and it was reasonable forhim to contemplate that Constable Shouldice had taken allnecessary steps and that Vanderwoude would be contacted againif the situation worsened.
Mr. Sauve, the parent who raised the alarm, was inthe presence of some friends of his son and the other twoyoung men. They considered notifying the other parents butdecided not to do so as they did not want to alarm themunnecessarily.
With the benefit of hindsight it is clear thatthere is nothing Sergeant Vanderwoude could have done thatmight have avoided the tragedy. Had he placed himself onduty and attended at the Detachment Office, as the Forceargues he ought to have done, we cannot see what duty hecould have performed that would in any way have assisted inthe search.
We understand the concern in the community and thereaction of senior members of the O.P.P. but nevertheless cannot find that Sergeant Vanderwoude neglected a duty.
For the above reasons we quash the finding of guiltand, of course, the penalty imposed.
DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 1993.
Per W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman