Constable Christos Nicolaou v. Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, 1993 CanLII 14142

ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended

BETWEEN:

CONSTABLE CHRISTOS NICOLAOU Appellant

-and-

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE Respondent

DECISION

Panel: Raymond G. Leclair, Member Karl R. Fuller, Member

Hearing Date: Tuesday, May 11, 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:

Raymond G. Leclair, Member

Karl R. Fuller, Member

Appearances:

Edward G. Spong, Counsel for Appellant

George S. Monteith, Counsel for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board

Hearing Date: Tuesday, May ll, l993

1. This is an appeal from a finding of discreditableconduct contrary to Section 56(a) of the Police Services Actl990 and Section l(a)(i) of the Schedule Code of Offence ofOntario, Regulation 79l/80, imposed on Constable ChristosNicolaou by a Hearing Officer. This officer was found guiltyof driving his personal motor vehicle while the validationtag had expired. His driver's licence had also not been renewed and he failed to provide evidence of an insurancepolicy in force at that time.

The Facts:

2. On the night of Saturday, May 25th, l99l, theappellant was off duty and while driving his private car waspulled over by P.C. Steven Patterson. Constable Patterson had observed that the validation tag had expired. The necessary verification was carried out by checking the MobileData Terminal. The appellant was requested to produce hisdriver's licence, ownership certificate and evidence of insurance. Upon examination the insurance certificate hadexpired in November l990, the driver's licence had expiredFebruary 2, l99l and the validation tag had also expired.

3. In the ensuing discussion regarding the expireddocuments, Constable Patterson confirmed having made commentsthat Constable Nicolaou was a "God damned" disgrace to fellowofficers and to the Police Department. At a point in thedialogue between both officers, Constable Nicolaou remarked"This is not a criminal offence - Go ahead and do what you have to do".

4. It is noted from the transcript of the trial andfrom information presented to the Commission that ConstableNicolaou did not ask to be let off, and that he displayed acommendable professional attitude throughout the interrogation by Constable Patterson. It is further noted that Constable Patterson exercised a level of unprofessionalarrogance in his discussion with Constable Nicolaou. The evidence corroborated by Patterson's partner, Constable Gouveia, records an excessive amount of swearing by ConstablePatterson, some of which was not in Constable Nicolaou's presence.

Counsel for the Appellant:

5. In his submission, Counsel for the appellant arguedthree points:

(1) Where a charge of discreditable conduct is contemplated,a fundamental question is -where do we set the standard.

(2) A police officer should be treated just like any otherperson should the officer breach a Provincial Act.

(3) A finding of discredit to the force should be for issuesfar more serious.

6. The fundamental thrust of his submission was to state that the public would expect that officers ought to bejudged on the same standard as a member of the public. While Constable Nicolaou was guilty of a number of regulatoryoffences, there was no evidence that his conduct would haveconstituted a danger to a member of the public, nor did heuse his position as a police officer to avoid responsibilityfor his conduct. We accept the Constable's explanation forhis early identification when stopped.

7. Counsel for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Servicecommented that the officer knowingly violated the law andthat the public expects a high level of conduct from officers. He argued that the Commission was not being askedto establish a test case as to what specifically constitutesdiscreditable conduct.

Reasons for Decision:

8. In summarizing the decision at the trial, theTrials Officer agreed that The Highway Traffic Act violationswere not serious in their own right, and should have probablybeen handled in a routine manner. We agree. If the officer was so repulsed by the Constable's breach of the Act,he should have issued the appropriate citations. We would hope that the treatment of this incident has been reviewed inorder to avoid such a result in the future. However,notwithstanding that the Police Services Act charge(discreditable conduct) imposes a greater penalty on P.C.Nicolaou than if he had been charged under The HighwayTraffic Act, the Commission considers it appropriate that theissue of what constitutes discreditable conduct and the penalties that are appropriate are to be determined byHearing Officers and Police Services Boards and not byconstables on the street.

9. We cannot minimize the seriousness of Constable Nicolaou's "neglect". The public would not expect that anofficer who is bound to enforce The Highway Traffic Act wouldhimself breach the Act, not in a single offence but on threecounts. In this respect, the public expectation of anofficer would, at minimum, be equivalent to the standardsexpected from a private citizen.

10. In dismissing the appeal, we wish to note theextent of unprofessional behaviour displayed by Officer Steven Patterson. We find his conduct to be reprehensibleand hope that senior officers have counselled him concerninghis attitude.

DATED THIS 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 1993.

per W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman