ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
FILE: OCPC-03-010
CASE NAME: SUPERINTENDENT PAUL GOTTSCHALK AND THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, AS AMENDED
BETWEEN:
Superintendent Paul Gottschalk APPELLANT
-and-
Toronto Police Service RESPONDENT
DECISION
Panel: Murray W. Chitra, Chair Joe Mavrinac, Member
Hearing Date: December 10, 2002
Hearing Location:
Appearances: Harry Black, Q.C. and Ms. Joanne Mulcahy, Counsel for the Appellant George Monteith and Ms. Carrie Kitchura, Counsel for the Respondent
I. Introduction
This is an appeal from a conviction on one count of neglect of duty contrary to section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Code of Conduct found at O. Reg. 123/98 (the "Code") made against Superintendent Paul Gottschalk by retired Superintendent Robert Fitches (the "Hearing Officer") on March 7, 2001.
As well, this is an appeal against the penalty imposed by the Hearing Officer on May 22, 2001. That penalty was a reprimand.
II. Background
Superintendent Paul Gottschalk is a long serving member of the Toronto Police Service. During the summer of 1998 he was Commander of the Special Investigation Service (the "SIS"). The SIS employed 130 officers and civilian staff. One of its units was known as the Break and Enter Enforcement Section.
On the evening of August 4, 1998, members of the Section had a court order to install a global positioning device in a car belonging to a suspect who lived in the eastern part of Toronto. A number of officers were assigned to this task.
Detective Constables Geoff Hesse, William Hancox and Steve Pattison were conducting surveillance. Just before 10:00 p.m., Detective Constable Hancox drove to a nearby plaza to purchase a pop at a convenience store. He was sitting in an unmarked police van in the plaza parking lot when he was approached by two women. In an unprovoked attack, Detective Constable Hancox was stabbed in the chest.
Despite his injuries he was able to broadcast a short call for help. Detective Constables Hesse, Pattison and other emergency services personnel responded. Unfortunately, Detective Constable Hancox's injuries were serious and he was pronounced dead shortly after 11:00 p.m.
Later that evening, Superintendent Gottschalk and Chief David Boothby went to Detective Constable Hancox's home to speak to his family. They stayed for several hours. The following day, the two women were arrested and charged with the Detective Constable's murder.
Chief Boothby directed Superintendent Gottschalk to assist Detective Constable Hancox's widow, Kim, in any way possible. Superintendent Gottschalk spent considerable time with Mrs. Hancox. For two weeks he either visited or spoke to her daily. He assisted her with funeral arrangements. He offered advice, helped with financial matters and took steps to ensure her privacy. When she gave birth to a child on August 30th he visited the hospital every day.
Over time this contact decreased in frequency. In January of 1999, Superintendent Gottschalk was transferred to command the Professional Standards Unit. Despite this fact, Mrs. Hancox and Superintendent Gottschalk maintained periodic contact. This included occasional lunches. One such lunch took place at the Black Dog Pub in Pickering on January 26, 1999.
It is evident that prior to this luncheon that Mrs. Hancox had received information (primarily from Detective Constable Steve Pattison) that gave her cause for concern about the conduct of certain officers who were on duty on the night of her husband's death. The specific concern was that two officers (Detective Constables Larry Smith and Elmer Manuel) were not where they should have been and may have been off drinking.
There is little doubt that some aspects of this concern were discussed at the luncheon of January 26th. Key elements of this conversation, however, are in dispute.
Matters came to a head following the conviction of the two women for second- degree murder in early November of 2000. It would appear that information about the conduct of Detective Constables Smith and Manuel came to the attention of both the Toronto Police Service and media. An internal investigation was commenced.
A number of persons were interviewed. This included Mrs. Hancox and Superintendent Gottschalk. On April 27, 2000, Superintendent Gottschalk was charged with the disciplinary offence of neglect of duty. The essence of the charge was that "having been told by Ms. Kim Hancox about allegations concerning the whereabouts and activities of Detective Elmer Manuel and Detective Constable Larry Smith on the 4th day of August, 1998, [Superintendent Gottschalk] failed to cause an investigation into the allegations of the said Kim Hancox."
The Hearing
The disciplinary hearing took place on February 5 and 7, 2001. A partial Agreed Statement of Facts was read into the record. A total of five witnesses testified.
Mrs. Hancox was the only witness for the Service. The defence produced Detective Constable Hesse, Retired Chief Boothby and Inspector Campbell (second in command of the SIS). Superintendent Gottschalk also testified. A total of sixteen exhibits were received.
Mrs. Hancox gave evidence that she spoke to Detective Constable Steve Pattison at the cemetery following her husband's funeral. She said that Detective Constable Pattison told her that Detective Constable Larry Smith (another member of the Break and Enter Section) was on duty the evening that her husband was murdered, but not with the team.
She stated that he told her that he had called Detective Constable Smith on the cell phone and heard glasses clinking in the background. He indicated that he believed that Detective Constable Smith was "off with Elmer" and he suspected they were in a bar drinking. The later name referred to Detective Constable Elmer Manuel. He was an officer assigned to the Technical Section of the Intelligence Service Unit. His role was to enter the vehicle and install the global positioning device.
Mrs. Hancox testified that she asked Detective Constable Pattison what was going to happen. She indicated that he replied that "Larry was probably feeling bad enough given what happened, and he didn't want to make it any worse for Larry … so long as Larry was transferred out [of the Unit], then [he] was happy to sit with it the way it was."1
Mrs. Hancox then testified that she had met Superintendent Gottschalk for lunch at the Black Dog Pub on January 26, 1999. She stated that she informed Superintendent Gottschalk that Detective Constable Pattison had told her that "Larry wasn't with the guys that night. That he was off with Elmer."2 She did not recall whether or not she told Superintendent Gottschalk of Detective Constable Pattison's suspicion that the two were drinking.
Mrs. Hancox testified that she asked Superintendent Gottschalk what was going to happen. She said that he told her that:
- the whole incident would be looked into after the criminal trial; and
- it could not be looked into now because it would "throw a red herring into the criminal trial";3
She further testified that Superintendent Gottschalk advised her to go to the preliminary inquiry with a pen and paper and write down every reference made to Larry and Elmer. Following their luncheon, she made brief notes of their conversation. She stated that she had also mentioned her concerns in a subsequent telephone conversation with Detective Constable Hesse.
Superintendent Gottschalk had a different memory of key aspects of the luncheon discussion. He stated that there was no reference by Mrs. Hancox to officers being improperly absent or drinking on duty. However, he testified that she expressed the view that if there had been more officers on duty that evening that her husband may not have been killed. She indicated that she had been advised to consider suing the Service.
Superintendent Gottschalk testified that she asked why some officers could stay and others could go home. In response to questioning she referred to "the guy everyone hated". She identified Detective Constable Larry Smith. Superintendent Gottschalk stated that he explained the difference between surveillance and a stakeout and indicated that Detective Constable Smith "wasn't there, he wasn't required".4
Superintendent Gottschalk indicated that he did not recall the name Elmer Manuel coming up in the conversation. He stated that he would have been surprised if Mrs. Hancox knew the name because the officer worked in a different section.
Superintendent Gottschalk testified that he advised Mrs. Hancox that if staffing issues were in question that they could be the subject of an Occupational Health and Safety investigation following the criminal proceeding. When Mrs. Hancox asked if it would have to wait he said that it would be a red herring and would confuse issues.
Superintendent Gottschalk indicated that they had discussed the types of matters that might be the subject of such an investigation. He stated that he had mentioned the use of vests, number of officers present and staffing. He testified that he told Mrs. Hancox he felt there were sufficient officers present on the evening in question.
He testified that he suggested she take notes at the preliminary inquiry "for posterity sake", as "therapy" that might "help her come to grips with what's happened" and to assist her counsel "in the event she does decide to sue".5 He denied mentioning taking any special note of Detective Constables Smith or Manuel.
Superintendent Gottschalk testified that after the luncheon he advised the Chief of Police and his legal counsel (Mr. Jerome Wiley Q.C.) that Mrs. Hancox was considering suing the Service. He also asserted that the first suggestion he had of misconduct on the part of any officer was in a phone call from a reporter several months later.
The Hearing Officer rendered his decision on March 7, 2001. He indicated the key question to be answered was:
Did Superintendent Gottschalk possess knowledge relative to the alleged whereabouts and/or activities of Detective Elmer Manuel and Detective Constable Larry Smith during the time period referred to that ought to have caused him to initiate an investigation into their activities?6
He noted that the answer to the question turned on "who said what to whom". He concluded the evidence of Mrs. Hancox was "compelling, forthright and steadfast". He found Superintendent Gottschalk guilty.
The proceedings were adjourned until May 7, 2001 for submissions with respect to penalty. A number of witnesses were called in support of Superintendent Gottschalk. They included retired Deputy Chief Loyall Cann, retired Deputy Chief Joesph Hunter, retired Chief of Police William McCormach, Mr. Jerome Wiley Q.C., Superintendent Keith Forde, retired Staff Inspector Frank Smith, Mr. Abbey Mushega (Human Rights Coordinator of the Toronto Police Service), Detective Sergeant Ralph Brookes and retired Staff Inspector Roy Teeft.
The witnesses gave evidence of Superintendent Gottschalk's exceptional work ethic, professionalism, dedication and accomplishments. They spoke to his general reputation for hard work, empathy, honesty and integrity.
As well, a number of additional exhibits were received. These included detailed performance assessments, letters of commendation and support and relevant personnel information.
On May 22, 2001, the Hearing Officer issued his penalty decision. He noted Superintendent Gottschalk's exemplary and unblemished work history and superb reputation. He observed that the aberrant nature of the actions in this case may have arisen partly as a result of Superintendent Gottschalk over-extending himself in providing Mrs. Hancox with delicate and compassionate support in "trying and stress filled times". Given these mitigating factors, the Hearing Officer imposing the least penalty available – a reprimand.
Appellant's Position
Mr. Black and Ms. Mulcahy, on behalf of Superintendent Gottschalk, challenge the findings of the Hearing Officer. In particular, Mr. Black asserted the Hearing Officer made a number of errors in his treatment of the evidence.
He argued the Hearing Officer failed to properly scrutinize all of the evidence before him. Rather, he stated the Hearing Officer focused on the demeanor of Mrs. Hancox instead of dealing with obvious inconsistencies, conflicting evidence and clear concerns with reliability. He suggested this approach essentially resulted in an improper shifting of the burden of proof.
In support of these assertions he cited: R. v. Norman (1993), 87 C.C.C. (3d) 163 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Gostick (1999), 1999 CanLII 3125 (ON CA), 137 C.C.C. (3d) 53 (Ont. C.A.), Jagoo v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [2000], O.J. No. 974 (Ont. Div. Ct.), IFK v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia [1998], B.C.J. No. 577 (B.C.C.A.), R. v. W(S) (1994), 1994 CanLII 7208 (ON CA), 90 C.C.C. (3d) 242 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. JGN (1992), 1992 CanLII 12806 (MB CA), 73 C.C.C. (3d) 381 (Man. C.A.), R. v. GG (1997), 1997 CanLII 1976 (ON CA), 115 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. MG (1994), 1994 CanLII 8733 (ON CA), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 347 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Richardson (1992), 1992 CanLII 12753 (ON CA), 74 C.C.C. (3d) 15 (Ont. C. A.), R. v. Brown (1994), 1994 CanLII 7609 (NS CA), 91 C.C.C. (3d) 89 (N.S.C.A.), R. v. V(K) (1991), 1991 CanLII 5761 (BC CA), 68 C.C.C. (3d) 18 (B.C.C.A.) and Constable Tomie-Gallant v. Board of Inquiry (Metropolitan Toronto Police Complaints) (21 August, 1996, Ont. Div. Ct.).
Mr. Black also argued the Hearing Officer failed to consider important relevant evidence going to such matters as Mrs. Hancox's state of mind. In particular, he suggested the Hearing Officer ignored defence submissions that Mrs. Hancox and the Appellant simply misunderstood each other's meaning during their luncheon conversation. On these points he drew our attention to Harper v. the Queen 1982 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1982], 1 S.C.R. 2 (S.C.C.).
Mr. Black asserted the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider evidence relating to the good character of the Appellant. He argued that evidence of good character is properly admissible in police disciplinary proceedings given their quasi-criminal nature (and differences with civil proceedings). He provided a number of examples of reference to character in such cases. He suggested this is particularly necessary where either intent or the Appellant's character is at issue.
On these points (and in a Supplementary Factum) Mr. Black citied the following cases: R. v. Elmosri (1985) 1985 CanLII 3545 (ON CA), 23 C.C.C. (3d) 503 (Ont. C.A.), Re Gloucester Police Force and Tremblay (1983), 42 O.R. (2d) 295 (Ont. Div. Ct.), Bernstein and College of Physicians and Surgeons (1977), 15 O.R. (2d) 477 (Ont. Div. Ct), Hanson v. College of Teachers (1993), 1993 CanLII 1035 (BC CA), 110 D.L.R. (4th) 567 (B.C.C.), Carnegie v. Marshall (5 April, 1993, Ont. Bd. Inq.), Fleming v. Ayotte (4 July, 1995, Ont. Bd. Inq.), Ridge and Metropolitan Toronto Police Service (1995), 2 O.P.R. 1024 (O.C.C.P.S.), Conroy and Pheby and Toronto Police Service (5 June, 1998, Hearing Officer Terence Kelly), McIntyre, Pepper, Nolan and Simmons and Toronto Police Service (April 28, 1998, Hearing Officer Terence Kelly), pp. 11-21 to 11-22.2 of The Regulation of Professionals in Canada (Casey, James T., Toronto, Carswell, 1999), sections 8 and 10 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 as amended, R. v. Verney (1993) 1993 CanLII 14688 (ON CA), 87 C.C.C. (3d) 363 (Ont. C.A.), and R. v. Henderson (1999), 1999 CanLII 2358 (ON CA), 134 C.C.C. (3d) 131 (Ont. C.A.).
Finally, Mr. Black argued the Hearing Officer erred by turning the disciplinary proceeding into a credibility contest, did not have sufficient evidence to support a finding of quilt to the degree of proof required, substituted his opinion for that of an officer acting in good faith and went well beyond the scope of the original Notice of Hearing.
On these issues he cited R. v. Jones (1992), 1992 CanLII 2971 (QC CA), 74 C.C.C. (3d) 377 (Que. C.A.), R. v. Mathieu (1994), 1994 CanLII 5561 (QC CA), 90 C.C.C. (3d) 415 (Que. C.A.), Laufers v. Magda and Sheppard (23 October, 1992, Ont. Div. Ct.), Hewitt and Devine and Toronto Police Service (1999), 3 O.P.R. 1372 (O.C.C.P.S.), P.G. v. Attorney General of Ontario and Police Complaints Commissioner (18 April, 1996, Ont. Div. Ct.), Pollock v. Hill and Cowley (19 November, 1992, Ont. Bd. Inq.), R. v. Lizzi 1996 CanLII 21269 (ON CTGD), [1996], O.J. No. 3235 (Ont. Gen. Div.), Smith v. Murdock (1987), 25 O.A.C. 246 (Ont. Div. Ct.) and Re Golomb and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (1976), 1976 CanLII 752 (ON HCJ), 68 D.L.R. (3d) 25 (Ont. Div. Ct.).
For these reasons Mr. Black and Ms. Mulcahy request that we overturn the finding of guilt and penalty imposed against Superintendent Gottschalk.
Respondent's Position
Mr. Monteith, supported by Ms. Kitchura argued the decision of the Hearing Officer is sound and must stand.
Mr. Monteith asserted the essential question to be answered is whether or not the decision of the Hearing Officer is without evidentiary foundation. On this principle he citied: Williams and Ontario Provincial Police (1995), 2 O.P.R. 1047 (O.C.C.P.S.), Deviney and Toronto Police Service (1999), 3 O.P.R. 1315 (O.C.C.P.S.) and Movers and Hamilton-Wenworth Police Service (1999), 3 O.P.R. 1327 (O.C.C.P.S.).
Mr. Monteith argued the Hearing Officer properly considered all of the evidence. This included assessing the reliability of witnesses and dealing with matters of credibility. Mr. Monteith asserted these are matters for the Hearing Officer to weigh and should not be disturbed in this case.
He argued that given the fact that the matters in question were essentially of a labour relation nature the various criminal cases citied by the Appellant with respect to the sufficiency of evidence were not helpful.
Mr. Monteith took the position that the Hearing Officer did not reverse the burden of proof, but rather made a decision based on the clear and convincing evidence presented at the disciplinary proceeding. He further asserted the Hearing Officer did not err in applying an objective or ex post facto approach to the evidence or go beyond the scope of the original Notice of Hearing. He further denied the notion of any speculation on the Hearing Officer's part.
Mr. Monteith also drew our attention to the rule in Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 27 (H.L.). This essentially states that if counsel plans to impeach the credibility of a witness in cross-examination by the calling of independent evidence, then the witness must be confronted with this evidence while he or she is being cross-examined. He suggested this had not been done in this case. He noted pp. 954-955 of The Law of Evidence in Canada (Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, Toronto, Butterworths, 2nd ed.)
Mr. Monteith argued in disciplinary cases (unlike criminal matters) it is not proper to admit evidence of good character. On this point he noted pp. 479-481 of the Law of Evidence, supra., Rawdah v. Evans [1994], O.J. No. 3322 (Ont. Gen. Div.) and Deep v. Wood et al. (1983), 1983 CanLII 3101 (ON CA), 143 D.L.R. (3d) 246 (Ont. C.A.).
In conclusion, Mr. Moneith stated we should uphold both the conviction and penalty.
III. Decision
The disciplinary offence of neglect of duty is found at section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Code. A police officer is guilty of such misconduct if he or she "without lawful excuse, neglects or omits promptly and diligently to perform a duty as a member of the police force".
As was noted by the Commission at page 1375 of Hewitt and Devine:
Essentially, this is a two part test. As the Commission stated in Soley and Ontario Provincial Police (1996), 3 O.P.R. 1098 (O.C.C.P.S.) at page 1100:
The charge of neglect of duty is a serious charge under the Code of Conduct. To be convicted of this charge, it must be shown that:
The member is required to perform a duty, and the member failed to perform this duty because of neglect, or did not perform the duty in a prompt or diligent manner.
Once proven, the member, to avoid discipline, must show that:
[The member] had a lawful excuse for not performing the duty in the prescribed manner.
This standard has been adopted in a number of Commission decisions.
It is also worth noting that neglect of duty is not an absolute offence. The law is clear that there must be either "willfulness" or "a degree of neglect which would make the matter cross the line from a mere performance consideration to a matter of misconduct". See P.G. and Attorney General of Ontario and Police Complaints Commissioner supra., at page 28 and Pollock v. Hill and Cowley supra., at pp. 25-26.
There is no doubt senior police officials have a duty to properly supervise subordinate officers and those under their command. This would include an obligation to follow up on allegations of potential serious misconduct or dereliction of duty. This is a responsibility that is both implicit in the nature of command and found at Toronto Police Service Rule 3.5.1.
The allegation in this case is both serious and tragic. Essentially, the assertion is Superintendent Gottschalk was told by the widow of a murdered Detective Constable that fellow officers who were on duty the evening of his death were not where they were suppose to be. i.e. assisting the members of the Break and Enter Enforcement Section preparing to install a global positioning device. It is alleged this information was brought to Superintendent Gottschalk's attention just prior to the commencement of the preliminary inquiry of the two women charged with the Detective Constable Hancox's death.
Assuming Mrs. Hancox provided this information to Superintendent Gottschalk at their luncheon of January 26, 1999, there is no doubt in our mind that he would have had a duty to promptly take some action. By that we mean either initiating an investigation or reporting the matter to his superiors. Further, it would have made no difference, whether or not the story ultimately turned out to be true or not.
Again, assuming this troubling information was brought to Superintendent Gottschalk's attention, it is hard to imagine any situation that might give rise to a defence of inadvertence or honest mistake. The information in question was not of the sort that could reasonably be forgotten, ignored or misunderstood. To our mind such inadvertence would cross the line from a mere performance consideration to a matter of misconduct.
The Hearing Officer in this case had a difficult task. There were only two individuals present at the luncheon of January 26, 1999 – Mrs. Hancox and Superintendent Gottschalk. It was the Hearing Officer's responsibility to listen to conflicting versions of events and weigh evidence against the established burden of proof. Essentially, the question for him was one of credibility. In other words, which version of the luncheon conversation was most truthful.
Out task is less complicated. In Williams and Ontario Provincial Police the Commission articulated the test to be applied to such cases. At page 1058 of that decision we stated:
Our role or function in such matters is not to second guess the decision of the Adjudicator. In certain limited cases, it would be open to us to reach a different conclusion from the trier of fact. However, that must be based on the strongest ground. In other words, there can be no other determination than the conclusions of the Adjudicator, as to the credibility of witnesses, cannot be reasonably be accepted.
The question to be asked in this case is, are the conclusion of the Adjudicator void of evidentiary foundation?
Accordingly, the question for us is whether or not the decision of the Hearing Officer was without evidentiary foundation or otherwise demonstrated manifest error in principle.
Even with a partial Agreed Statement of Facts, the hearing in this case took two days. There was extensive cross-examination of witnesses. Many exhibits were received into evidence, including previous statements taken from both Mrs. Hancox and Superintendent Gottschalk.
The Hearing Officer had the benefit of seeing the witnesses and assessing their demeanor. At the end of the day he concluded that the testimony of Ms. Kim Hancox was "compelling, forthright and steadfast". Overall, based on the evidence presented, we feel that this was a finding that was open to the Hearing Officer.
This conclusion does not appear to be solely based on an assessment of demeanor. On this issue, there are a number of points worth noting. First, Mrs. Hancox's testimony on the key aspects of what she told Superintendent Gottschalk was consistent with her prior statements i.e. that she conveyed to Superintendent Gottschalk prior to the preliminary inquiry that two officers were not where they should have been on the night of her husband's death. These statements were volunteered and not compelled.
Second, Mrs. Hancox version of events was subject to detailed and forceful cross-examination. Even acknowledging the inconsistencies identified by Mr. Black, it is clear that she did not waiver on the essential elements. As well, Mrs. Hancox freely acknowledged aspects of her evidence of which she was not clear or sure. i.e. she could not recall whether or not she mentioned to Superintendent Gottschalk the suspicion that the officers were drinking. Further, Mrs. Hancox made notes following the luncheon. The notes contained the words "negligence" and also mentioned "Elmer Manuel (Det.)". This can been seen as partial corroboration of her version of a key part of the conversation.
It is also worth noting that the Hearing Officer is a retired Superintendent. As such he brings practical knowledge to his deliberations and is in a unique position to assess Superintendent Gottschalk's testimony. On this point we note that his comments at page 3 of his decision:
During his testimony, Superintendent Gottschalk indicated that he was unaware of the activities of some of the men assigned to the Break and Enter Unit that evening. He also stated that after the fact that he was unaware of precisely who was doing what.
Given the hideous nature of the events of August 4, 1998, I find it incomprehensible that the senior officer responsible for the unit would not arm himself with every possible detail of the activities of each and every member of the unit at all relevant times. To suggest that to do so may hamper a homicide investigation is simply perplexing to me. In any event, a decision to suspend or otherwise delay such an investigation would not or should not be Superintendent Gottschalk's to make.
Given the above, we do not feel that it can be said that the conclusions of the Hearing Officer are void of evidentiary foundation.
Further, we do not believe that the Hearing Officer's treatment of the evidence resulted in a reversal of the onus. It would appear he simply noted that her testimony was not significantly diminished by the evidence of other witnesses. As well, we observe the Hearing Officer appears to have acknowledged and taken into account the evidence presented with respect to Superintendent Gottschalk's character. Specifically, he noted at page 3 of his decision: "A number of witnesses testified as to Superintendent Gottschalk's character and positive attributes. Some also offered opinions as to the likelihood of his possessing this knowledge and failing to take appropriate action."
Any shortcomings that may have been noted were not sufficient to vary the decision of the Hearing Officer.
Police disciplinary proceedings are labour relations matters and, as such, the same strict standards with respect to the treatment of witnesses and evidence in criminal proceedings are not always relevant.
This leaves the matter of penalty. Given that the Hearing Officer imposed the least severe penalty available (a reprimand), we do not see how it can be further reduced. Accordingly, the penalty stands.
DATED AT TORONTO THIS 29th DAY OF JANUARY, 2003
Murray Chitra, Joe Mavrinac Chair Member