ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. P.15, AS AMENDED
BETWEEN:
SERGEANT VITTORIO QUINTIERI
Appellant
-and-
TORONTO POLICE SERVICE
Respondent
DECISION
Panel: Barbara Morland Wellard Sam Cancilla, Member
Hearing Date: September 25, 2001
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: Barbara Morland Wellard Sam Cancilla, Member
Appearances: James John Burke, Counsel for the Appellant D. Meagher,Counsel for the Respondent
Hearing Date: September 25, 2001
On February 13, 2001, the Appellant pled guilty to one count of discreditable conduct contrary to section 2(1)(a)(ix) of the Code of Conduct found at O. Reg. 123/98 (the “Code”). On April 25, 2001, Superintendent Margo E. Boyd, (the “Hearing Officer”) imposed a sentence of dismissal in the event that Sergeant Quintieri did not resign within seven days.
This is an appeal from that disposition.
Background:
The Appellant and his wife, Angela, separated in 1996. The Quintieris shared custody of the two children of their marriage. The Appellant had access to the children on Tuesdays and Thursdays, plus alternate weekends. He had extended access for two weeks each summer. The separation was acrimonious.
On September 18, 1996, the Appellant engaged in an argument with his wife during which he threatened that she was going to be found dead with her body full of “pidiocchi” (maggots and lice). The Appellant’s then five-year old son observed this incident.
As a consequence, the Appellant was charged with the offence of threatening contrary to the Criminal Code. He entered into a peace bond and the criminal charge was withdrawn.
As a further consequence of this incident, the Appellant was charged with the offence of discreditable conduct contrary to the Code. He pled not guilty, but on April 24, 1998 was found guilty of the charge. On June 30, 1998, a penalty of forfeiture of four days or thirty-two hours off was imposed.
At or about the same time (between June 26th and July 8th), the Appellant engaged in a conversation with his two children. His son was then aged eight and his daughter was six. During the course of that conversation, he told the children that he had a gun and was going to kill their mother and grandmother. As a consequence of this incident, the Appellant was once again charged with the offence of having, by word of mouth, knowingly uttered a death threat contrary to the Criminal Code.
The Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to this charge in court. As a consequence of this plea, a full trial of the issues relating to the incident occurred before His Honour Judge L. Budzinski, which included the testimony of the Appellant and his two children. On June 8, 1999, Judge Budzinski found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to eighteen months probation.
One of the terms of the probation was that he abstain from owning, possessing or carrying any weapon or firearm, as defined in the Criminal Code, except for the purposes of employment and provided that he have the written permission from the Chief of Police granting him permission to carry such a weapon and that he have that permission on his person when he possessed the weapon.
The Hearing:
As a result of these proceedings, Sergeant Quintieri was once again charged with discreditable conduct. The specific allegation related to being found guilty of a criminal offence. On this occasion, the Appellant pled guilty and the matter was set over for sentencing.
In her decision, the Hearing Officer reviewed the evidence provided. She noted that the Appellant had been a police officer for 23 years and that his personnel file contained 27 complimentary letters, which included 11 letters of appreciation. He received a Merit Mark in 1979 for graduating in the top 25% of his class and the Police Exemplary Medal in 1997. Numerous neighbours, friends and associates attested to the Appellant’s good character.
The Hearing Officer indicated that this situation stood apart from other cases of uttering death threats as the threats were made to the intended victim’s children. She found this alarming.
The Hearing Officer acknowledged that the Appellant was under stress and that he had a right to feel that stress. She pointed out that that did not, however, allow him to commit a criminal act.
The Hearing Officer considered the expert opinion of the Appellant’s psychologist, Dr. Klarreich. She commented that Dr. Klarreich did not have to consider the impact on the community or general deterrence when stating that he would be surprised if there was a relapse of this type of behaviour by the Appellant.
The Hearing Officer did not find that the Appellant was remorseful or accepted responsibility for his actions. She noted that he only began seeing Dr. Klarreich after he realized that his job might be in jeopardy.
The Hearing Officer considered the import of domestic violence. She recognized that it is a serious social and family problem.
The Hearing Officer felt that the Appellant had been given the benefit of the doubt and shown leniency when he was disciplined in June 1998 for a similar charge. He was given the opportunity to reform or rehabilitate and he did not take advantage of that opportunity.
The Hearing Officer felt that to allow the Appellant to continue, as a police officer, to carry a gun would outrage the community.
Due to the fact that this was the Appellant’s second conviction for a similar charge, the Hearing Officer felt that his credibility had been irreparably damaged. She thus ordered him to resign within seven days or be summarily dismissed.
The Appeal:
Mr. Burke, on behalf of the Appellant, argued that the Hearing Officer’s decision was overwhelmingly biased. Among other things she:
failed to consider the difficulties that the Appellant was experiencing due to the breakup of his marriage and the fact that he was required to testify against a fellow officer at or about this time;
drew an adverse inference from the fact that the Appellant pled not guilty at the criminal trial;
stated that a third party threat (as in this case) was more serious than a direct threat;
gave little weight to the evidence of Dr. Klarreich;
failed to place adequate weight on the Appellant’s exemplary record; and
failed to consider the economic impact on the family as a result of the dismissal.
When considering the totality of the evidence, Mr. Burke submitted that the Hearing Officer made an error in principle and this Tribunal should overturn her decision.
Mr. Meagher, on behalf of the Respondent, argued that the Hearing Officer considered all the evidence and followed the principles of sentencing, i.e.:
(i) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(ii) specific deterrence;
(ii) the potential for rehabilitation;
(iii) general deterrence; and
(iv) the effect on the reputation of the police service if an officer was allowed to remain a member.
- He argued that the penalty was appropriate considering all of the factors and that the appeal should be dismissed.
Decision:
For an appeal of sentence to be successful, we must find that there is a manifest error in principle or that relevant factors in assessing penalty were ignored.
As this Commission has stated on many occasions, when assessing penalty there are a number of key factors to be weighed. These include the nature and seriousness of the offence, the ability to reform or rehabilitate the officer in question, and the damage to the reputation of the police force that would occur should the officer remain with the service.
In addition, there are a variety of other factors. These include acknowledgment of responsibility; employment history; need for deterrence; personal difficulty and consistent management approach to the misconduct. See Mattison and Niagara Regional Police Service (1996), 3 O.P.R. 1117 at p.1120 (OCCPS). Further, any penalty imposed must be within the range of previous disposition for similar offences.
The Hearing Officer found this offence to be serious and referred to the societal position regarding domestic violence. She found no acknowledgment of responsibility by the Appellant. She felt that the Appellant had been given a chance to reform or rehabilitate himself after the first charge and failed to do so. She also specifically stated that the Appellant’s credibility had been damaged irreparably such that he could not continue as a police officer.
She stated that for the first 18 years of his career, the Appellant had been a good member of the force. She considered his entire work record including his various commendations.
The Hearing Officer felt that, in this situation, there was a need for both specific and general deterrence in order to maintain the positive image of the police force. She was aware that the Appellant was going through a stressful period in his life. She did not feel that that was justification for the commission of a criminal offense. She was aware of the economic impact on the family and the Appellant’s wife’s position regarding the sentence imposed.
Given the above, we are satisfied that the Hearing Officer considered all of the relevant factors and applied the appropriate evidentiary weight to each. We find that the Hearing Officer did not err in principle.
This Commission has previously considered cases where police officers have been found guilty of uttering death threats. See Mason and Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Service (March 9, 2000, OCCPS) and Carson and Pembroke Police Service (July 27, 2001, OCCPS). Both cases involved first offences. In Mason, the penalty was a reduction in rank for six months and in Carson, a reduction in rank for 12 months.
Clearly, such conduct is serious and deserves a significant penalty. In the case at hand, this was the Appellant’s second disciplinary conviction relating to domestic violence. Indeed, his second threat was made at about the same time as he was being sentenced for his first. Further, he is not a junior officer lacking in experience. In his role as a sergeant, he must have known that this type of behaviour could not continue to be tolerated.
Given the above, we are satisfied that the penalty imposed was well within the range available to the Hearing Officer. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2001.
Barbara Morland Wellard
Member, OCCPS
Sam Cancilla
Member, OCCPS