ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
FILE: OCPC-03-013
CASE NAME: STAFF SERGEANT JAMES DARYL MONAGHAN AND THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, AS AMENDED
BETWEEN:
Staff Sergeant James Daryl Monaghan APPELLANT
-and-
Toronto Police Service RESPONDENT
DECISION
Panel: Barbara Morland Wellard, Member Charles Rycroft, Member
Hearing Date: January 13, 2003 and April 7, 2003
Hearing Location:
Appearances: Joanne E. Mulcahy, Counsel for the Appellant Michael G. Martosh, Counsel for the Respondent
I. Introduction
This is an appeal from a conviction of one count of discreditable conduct contrary to section 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct found at Ontario Regulation 123/98 as amended (the “Code”) made against the Appellant by Superintendent Margo Boyd (the “Hearing Officer”) on November 2nd, 2001.
In addition Staff Sergeant Monaghan appeals the sentence imposed by the Hearing Officer on December 21st, 2001 of a gradation to the rank of sergeant for a period of three months.
II. Background
The essential facts are not in dispute. The charges themselves arose from a conversation between the Appellant and Constable Harbinder Gill which occurred on the 17th day of February 2000. There had been some history between the Appellant and the Constable.
On December 17, 1998, Constable Gill filed an internal police human rights complaint alleging that his platoon commander, the Appellant, had made an offensive racial remark about him during a parade (hereinafter referred to as the “first complaint”). It was alleged that the Appellant stated to Constable Gill, an officer of Sikh heritage: “You people can grow a beard in three days”.
This first complaint was investigated and resolved at the unit level on the basis that the Appellant was assessed a 16 hour loss of pay, he was to provide Constable Gill with a personal apology which he did by expressing to Constable Gill his regret that any comment given had caused unintended offence.
In early February of 2000, Staff Inspector Corrie advised the Appellant that Constable Gill would be returning to the Appellant’s platoon after Constable Gill had been away on an extended assignment with the Community Response Unit. The Appellant expressed his concerns about Constable Gill’s return to his platoon including his belief that Constable Gill was a “disruptive influence”. The position of the Appellant was that he was a manager that came in and “cleaned up” the platoon and that Constable Gill would have harboured bad feelings about his managerial style. The main issue appeared to revolve around lunch breaks taken by Constable Gill and other members of the platoon.
The evidence of Staff Sergeant Monaghan as well as Sergeant Sean Brosnan confirmed that both the Appellant and the sergeants working for him were upset and angered by management’s decision to return Constable Gill to the platoon.
Staff Sergeant Monaghan testified that while Constable Gill was away from the platoon, that moral had improved and the operation of the platoon was much more positive. In his own testimony, he indicated that he really could not understand why Constable Gill would want to return to the platoon knowing the Appellant’s managerial style. However, despite these concerns, Staff Inspector Corrie indicated that the