ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF The POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended
BETWEEN:
PROVINCIAL CONSTABLE S.L.W. SHOULDICE
Appellant
-and-
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
Respondent
DECISION
Panel: Karl R. Fuller, Member Mary Lou Dietz, Member
Hearing Date: Monday, October l7, l994
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:
Karl R. Fuller, Member Mary Lou Dietz, Member
Appearances:
W. Michael Temple, Solicitor for the Appellant Dennis W. Brown, Q.C., Solicitor for the Ontario Provincial Police
Hearing Date: Monday, October l7, l994
On April 23, 1994 Provincial Constable S.L.W. Shouldice was found guilty of the disciplinary offence of "neglect of duty" contrary to section 1(c)(i) of the Code of Offenses contained in the Schedule to R.R.O. 1990, Chap. 927. For this offence P.C. Shouldice was ordered to forfeit "two (2) days or twenty (20) hours time off".
The specific allegations against P.C. Shouldice were as follows:
"On June 12, 1991 at approximately 2230 hours while on duty as a member of the Ontario Provincial Police, you were advised of an occurrence involving three persons who had been fishing on the St. Lawrence River in the Lancaster Detachment area. You did not personally attend with or make any attempt to offer assistance by the OPP to the involved families. You did not notify the District Commander of the situation and your notebook contains very little information concerning the particulars of this occurrence or any investigation you may have conducted. You went off duty at 0400 hours without offering these families any present or future involvement or assistance from the OPP."
The Appeal:
Constable Shouldice appeals the disciplinary decision. On his behalf, Mr. Temple makes the following arguments:
The Force Adjudicator erred in finding that the appellant did not personally attend with or make any attempt to offer assistance to the involved families.
The Force Adjudicator erred in failing to find that the appellant's conduct was influenced by the fact that he was engaged in another serious occurrence for a considerable portion of his shift.
The Force Adjudicator erred in finding that the appellant acted reasonably in obtaining the advice and assistance of a Senior Constable and supervising Sergeant and in following the direction that he received.
The Force Adjudicator erred in finding that the Appellant's notes on the missing boaters occurrence were inadequate. The lack of detail in these notes reflect the lack of information regarding the whereabouts or conditions of the boaters at the time the notes were made.
There was not clear and convincing evidence presented at the hearing to convict the appellant.
Considering the inexperience and unblemished record of the appellant, an appropriate penalty would have been reprimand.
Background:
On the afternoon of June 12, 1991 three young men took a 14-foot fibreglass boat with a 15 horsepower motor out on Lake Francis to fish. As the day progressed weather conditions deteriorated. The young men had not returned home by dark.
Their parents became concerned. A number of telephone calls were placed. Mr. Sauve, a father of one of the young men called the OPP at 9:47 and 10:15 p.m. Following the second call, the dispatcher contacted P.C. Shouldice of the Lancaster Detachment and advised him of the situation and instructed him to contact a Mrs. O'Brian at the Lancaster Inn near the local marina.
P.C. Shouldice phoned the Inn and received no reply. He left a message on the answering machine. Then he drove to the Inn, but found it closed.
At 10:48 p.m., Mr. Sauve phoned a third time. P.C. Shouldice returned the call to the Sauve home. He obtained background information and was advised by Mr. Sauve that the Coast Guard Search and Rescue had been contacted. P.C. Shouldice conferred with a fellow officer.
Then, at approximately 11:00 p.m. P.C. Shouldice contacted his off-duty supervisor, Sergeant Andrew Vanderwoude, for direction. The Sergeant advised him that the Ontario Provincial Police did not have a boat available in Lancaster and that the Force's boat at Long Sault was in dry dock. He was also told to follow up with the Coast Guard to ensure that they had originated a search and to contact him if there was any change in the status of the investigation. Finally, Sergeant Vanderwoude directed that an Occurrence Report be completed and left on his desk so he could review it when he came into work at 7:00 a.m.
P.C. Shouldice then contacted the only open local restaurant, and the mother of one of the missing boaters to see if he might have returned home. He spoke to Mr. Sauve again. Mr. Sauve advised him that the Coast Guard had begun a search on the water. There was a discussion about who should contact the families of the other young men. Mr. Sauve says that he understood that P.C. Shouldice ageed to do so. P.C. Shouldice states that they agreed that Mr. Sauve would contact the families.
P.C. Shouldice next phoned the Coast Guard Search and Rescue in Quebec City and confirmed that a search was being undertaken. At the request of the Coast Guard he performed a search of an area of highway near the water to determine whether or not the boat was grounded. This ended at approximately 12:30 a.m.
For the next three hours P.C. Shouldice was involved in a matter arising from a disturbance at a local tavern. Along with another officer, Constable Shouldice arrested a man, brought him before a Justice of the Peace and transported him to Cornwall Jail. The Constable booked off duty at 4:00 a.m. He had no further contact with Mr. Sauve or the families of the missing young men. No Occurrence Report was left on Sergeant Vanderwoude's desk. P.C. Shouldice's notes of his activities in response to the missing boaters was a brief 15 lines with no chronology.
At 5:30 a.m. Mrs. Sauve saw an overturned boat on the water 3000 feet from her home. Subsequently, all three young men were found drown.
Decision:
The events giving rise to this case are indeed tragic.
On June 13, 1993 a panel of this Commission considered the appeal by Sergeant Vanderwoude of the disciplinary sanction imposed upon him arising from the same incident. In a decision dated June 25, 1994 the panel stated:
"We note that in testimony, the Canadian Coast Guard confirmed that it is their responsibility to carry out the search and that they prefer the O.P.P. do not assist in the search of the waters as their equipment is inadequate for the purpose.
Having considered all the circumstances we are not convinced that Sergeant Vanderwoude's physical presence on the scene would have effected the unfortunate outcome in any way. He was off duty at the time and it was reasonable for him to contemplate that Constable Shouldice had taken all necessary steps and that Vanderwoude would be contacted again if the situation worsened."
The real question then, from our prospective and admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, is "Did Constable Shouldice take all the necessary steps in dealing with the missing boaters?"
Judgment in this case is complicated by three factors. First, there were some difficulties in "dispatching" Mr. Sauve's original telephone call to the Ontario Provincial Police. Second, while the Force had in place various policies with respect to "Search and Rescue" these policies appear to have been lacking in certain respects. By this, we refer to any direction to officers on how to deal with reports of "overdue" boats or the manner in which the OPP and other local police forces and the Coast Guard would coordinate land and water searches. Third, P.C. Shouldice was a relatively new and junior officer, who was tired from working a long and busy shift.
Clearly, P.C. Shouldice took several positive steps. He contacted Mr. Sauve twice. He conferred with a fellow officer. He contacted his supervisor for direction. He spoke with the Coastguard to confirm their involvement. He contacted the only open local restaurant and the mother of one of the missing young men to determine if they were there. He responded to a Coast Guard request to search a length of highway.
On the other hand, it is evident from Mr. Sauve's testimony that he felt that the Constable would be contacting family members. Even if this understanding was not correct and the opposite was true, this seems like a very heavy burden to leave with a distraught father.
Finally, and perhaps most to the point, P.C. Shouldice booked off his shift at 4:00 a.m. without following up with either the Coast Guard or family members on the status of the search. He did not prepare the Occurrence Report as requested and his notes of the events at the time were both sparse and lacking order.
It is doubtful that anything that P.C. Shouldice might have done would have made any difference with respect to the eventual outcome of these tragic events. However, all that being said, given the concerns of the families and the circumstances of this case, we are not able to conclude that P.C. Shouldice applied full diligence to his duties that evening.
Having said that, we accept Mr. Temple's submissions with respect to penalty. At the time of this event P.C. Shouldice had only three years experience. He had never handled a similar occurrence. His record is unblemished. Accordingly, we uphold the conviction and direct that the penalty be reduced to reprimand.
We conclude by observing that we trust that something has been learned from these tragic events. Clearly, there ought to be practical and well understood operational policies in place coordinating the activities of government agencies involved in land and water search and rescue efforts in a community located on a major body of water, near an international boundary.
DATED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1994.
Karl R. Fuller, Member
Mary Lou Dietz, Member