<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
_______________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF The [POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p15/latest/rso-1990-c-p15.html), as amended
<!--mc:open:cover-parties-->
BETWEEN:
CONSTABLE PIERRE PARENT
Appellant
-and-
HAWKESBURY POLICE SERVICE
Respondent
______________________________________________
DECISION
______________________________________________
Panel: Raymond G. Leclair, Member
Hearing Date: October 6, 1997
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 Member:
Raymond G. Leclair, Member
Appearances:
Michel Z. Charbonneau, Counsel for the Appellant
Daniel O. Brisebois, Counsel for the Respondent
Hearing Date: October 6, 1997
1. This is an appeal of the convictions and penalties imposed by Superintendent F. Kingsley (the “Hearing Officer”) on January 7th, 1997 against Constable Pierre Parent of the Hawkesbury Police Service following an 11 day hearing which commenced October 28th, 1996.
2. The charges stem from an inquiry conducted by Constable Parent into alleged illegal recordings of private conversations over telephone lines at the Hawkesbury Fire Station (the “Station”) by the Fire Chief. Originally, the officer faced 23 charges; however, 5 were withdrawn at the beginning of the hearing. The officer was found guilty on 8 of the remaining 18 charges. As a result, Constable Parent was ordered to resign within seven days or be dismissed. The officer appealed and the Board directed the appeal to this Commission.
<!--mc:close:cover-parties-->
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## Background:
3. Originally, the Station was equipped with four telephone lines - two designated as emergency lines, one a business line and the last one a private line. A safety report had recommended that all radio and telephone emergency transmissions to the Station be recorded and a proposal was made to City Council to purchase and install the necessary equipment. Initially, the proposal was rejected because of the cost and budget concerns.
4. Following a major fire in the city, the Fire Chief purchased and installed equipment to record all fire station lines and radio transmissions. The evidence clearly showed that the Chief was within his authority to proceed with the purchase and installation of the equipment as the expenditure had been approved by Council.
5. Two recorders were installed in the dispatch room to record the two emergency lines, in order for the dispatchers to be able to listen to the tapes for any missed information. Five recorders were installed in a file room, one to record each of the four telephone lines and the radio transmissions. Only the Fire Chief had access to the file room and he alone cared for the equipment and changed the tapes as required. At the request of the fire hall staff, the recorder on the private line was disconnected and those calls not recorded in order to permit users to have private discussions with family members or discuss union matters with their legal advisors.
6. The Station, part of the municipal administrative offices, had a lounge for staff, located next to the council chambers. The telephone in the lounge was used by council members, municipal court judges and other city staff when they visited the council chambers. No notice indicated that these lines were recorded or which of the four was not recorded. Dispatchers inadvertently listened, from time to time, to recorded confidential calls from non-fire station staff who were unaware they were being recorded during their calls. They did not tell the individuals or the Fire Chief of the recordings.
7. At this time, the relationship between the fire station staff and the municipal administration was strained. In 1993, the fire station staff began to suspect that the Fire Chief was secretly recording their confidential conversations. Although they opted not to take any action for fear of reprisals, several other incidents and circumstances continued to reinforce their suspicions, but they were without proof. The evidence shows that they discussed this matter with several officers of the Hawkesbury Police Service, but no one agreed to take any action.
8. On May 1st, 1994, Constable Parent met two firefighters at the Station. They advised him of their suspicions and indicated that, according to their information, the recording equipment was illegal. The officer recorded the meeting and suspicion in his official notebook and noted that he would speak to a Sergeant. Constable Parent gathered evidence, including a tape of an intimate conversation of an elected city official speaking with a woman - not his wife. The tape was obtained by the officer in early May and kept in his personal locker at the police station until July 13th when it was tagged and entered in the evidence locker. No other notes were made in his official notebook of the investigation, meetings, discussions, evidence, etc., until July 11th, 1994. Constable Parent indicates that he met on May 19th, 1994, to discuss the matter with the Sergeant in the criminal investigation bureau. He was advised not to proceed with an investigation unless he had a written complaint from fire station staff.
9. Constable Parent received the written complaint late in the day on July 11th, 1994, and because there was no Sergeant on duty and the Chief of Police had gone home he, therefore, did not advise any one of his superiors. Constable Parent testified that on the evening of the 11th, at home, he reconstructed his investigation from notes in a personal day-timer he had and made telephone calls to fire station staff to confirm the days they worked, as a reminder of the days of his meetings with them. For the period of July 12th to the 15th, he continued to keep his notes of the investigation in the daytimer which he kept at home.
10. At 7 a.m. on the 12th of July, at the start of his shift, he met with the Sergeant to advise him of the information at hand and to advise that he was proceeding to the Station to pursue his investigation. The Sergeant authorized his actions, provided he obtained the city officials’ permission to access the premises. At City Hall, in the Mayor’s absence, the Chief Administrative Officer (the “CAO”) refused to allow him access to the file room and insisted, on legal advice, that the officer obtain a search warrant. After conferring with the Crown Attorney, the officer sealed the room and before leaving to obtain the search warrant, went to the dispatch room and seized the two recorders on the basis of his understanding of the plain view theory.
11. The CAO called the Chief of Police. When called by the Chief of Police later that morning to explain his actions Constable Parent briefed the Chief and indicated that the Sergeant had authorized his actions. Once at the police station, the officer prepared documentation to obtain a search warrant to seize the other four recorders. During the day he discussed the case with the Chief of Police. Upon obtaining the search warrant, he proceeded to the fire station and seized the four recorders, tapes and various other equipment.
12. On July 13th, Constable Parent met with a Sergeant and the Chief of Police to fully review the steps he had undertaken. When discussing the tape he had obtained in May, he refused to disclose to the Chief who gave him the tape for fear of getting them in trouble
minicounsel