ONTARIO CIVILIAN COMMISSION ON POLICE SERVICES
REASONS FOR DECISION
Citation: Groot v. Peel Regional Police Service 2002 ONCPC 4
CONSTABLE NORMAN GROOT
Appellant
and
PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE
Respondent
Presiding Members:
Murray W. Chitra, Chair
Barbara Morland Wellard, Member
Appearances:
Irwin Koziebrocki, Counsel for the Appellant
Ian D. Scott, Counsel for the Respondent
Hearing Date: February 12, 2002
This is an appeal from the penalty of dismissal (in the absence of resignation within seven days) imposed on Constable Norman Groot by Superintendent Susan Horner (the “Hearing Officer”) on February 27, 2001.
The penalty in question followed a finding of guilt on January 24, 2001 with respect to a single count of discreditable conduct contrary to section 2(1)(a)(ix) of the Code of Conduct found at Regulation 123, R.R.O. 1998 (the “Code”). That conviction is not in question.
Background:
The facts giving rise to this appeal are complex and span more than a decade. Norman Groot joined the Peel Regional Police Service (the “Service”) in May of
1985 as a cadet. He was 19 years old. In November of 1987 he was appointed
as a fourth class constable and thus became a police officer.
Constable Groot’s early work history as a police officer was not without problems. While his evaluations contain many positive comments, also documented are concerns about his general attitude, his difficulty in following procedures and
guidelines, a need for supervision, lack of team play, carelessness, incomplete paperwork, an unwillingness to follow direction and occasional over-zealousness.
Some aspects of this behavior gave rise to discipline. For example, in October and November of 1990, while off duty, he identified himself as a police officer to both a private business and a bank official for the purpose of obtaining confidential information to assist him in collecting a personal debt. This resulted in the forfeiture of 24 hours pay following a guilty plea at a disciplinary hearing.
The events which give rise to the current proceedings occurred on December 15,
- Early that morning, Constable Groot arrested a man in the parking lot of the Service’s 12 Division. The man was heavily intoxicated and Constable Groot believed that he was attempting to break into the car of a friend and fellow officer.
There was some resistance on the part of the accused. Constable Groot handcuffed the prisoner’s hands behind his back and used a restraint hold to direct him into the police station. Instead of taking the accused to the Criminal Investigation office (which would have been normal procedure), Constable Groot took him to the Youth Bureau.
While being directed into an interview room, part of the accused’s body struck a doorframe. In the unlit interview room, the accused’s head struck a desk with such force that a corner broke off. As a result, the prisoner received a number of lacerations to his face. One cut to the forehead went right to the skull. A total of ten woodchips from the desk were later removed. A second cut, equally deep, took six sutures to close. Constable Groot’s explanation to other officers who responded to the commotion was, “The fucking guy tripped.”
An investigation ensued, and on October 15, 1991, Constable Groot was charged with the offence of assault causing bodily harm contrary to section
267(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. On July 28, 1992, following