Amato v. York Regional Police Service, 2014 CanLII 100638

ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, AS AMENDED

Citation: Amato v. York Regional Police Service, 2014 ONCPC 16

BETWEEN:

CONSTABLE MICHAEL AMATO APPELLANT

-and-

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE RESPONDENT

DECISION

Panel: Zahra Dhanani, Member *Jeffrey King, Member

Hearing Date: June 23, 2014 Hearing Location: Toronto, Ontario

• Jeffrey King did not participate in this Decision.

Ontario Civilian Police Commission 250 Dundas Street West, Suite 605 Toronto, ON M7A 2T3 Tel: 416-314-3004 Fax: 416-314-0198 Website: www.ocpc.ca

APPEARANCES:

Mr. William MacKenzie, Counsel for the Appellant Constable Michael Amato

Mr. Jason Fraser, Counsel for the Respondent York Regional Police Service.

INTRODUCTION

1. Constable Michael Amato (“Const. Amato” or the “Appellant”) was charged with one count of Insubordination under the Code of Conduct, set out as a Schedule to Ontario Regulation 268/10 under the Police Services Act (the “Act”). The details of the charges in the Notice of Hearing (the “Notice”) are as follows:

On July 4, 2012, without lawful excuse, disobeys, omits or neglects to carry out a lawful order, by not remaining on administrative duties as directed.

2. On June 17th, 2013 a hearing was held before Retired Superintendent Tatz (the “Hearing Officer”). At the hearing Const. Amato pled not guilty to the charge.

3. On August 9th, 2013, the Hearing Officer found Const. Amato guilty of Insubordination.

4. On October 9th, 2013, the Hearing Officer released a decision imposing a penalty of 8 hours forfeiture of pay.

5. Const. Amato is appealing both the decision on conviction and on penalty.

DECISION

6. For the reasons set out below, we dismiss this appeal.

BACKGROUND

7. Const. Amato has been employed by the York Regional Police Service (“YRPS”) for over 26 years.

8. He has received many letters of recognition for his work and has no prior discipline record.

9. From March, 2007 until January, 2013, Const. Amato worked in the Intelligence Bureau (“IB”) as a Detective Constable. The matter before us occurred during that period.

10. Starting in February of 2012, a new supervisor joined the IB, Detective Sony Dosanjh (“Det. Dosanjh”). At this time he became the direct supervisor of the entire IB unit staff including Const. Amato.

11. Serious concerns about the functioning of the IB unit were brought to the attention of Det. Dosanjh. In an effort to create a consistent professional standard amongst the IB staff team, Det. Dosanjh created a memo with thirteen points on it, enumerating work related expectations of members of the IB (the “Memo”).

12. Det. Dosanjh held a team meeting on March 26th, 2012 where he distributed a copy of the Memo to everyone including Const. Amato. During this meeting the IB team went over the expectations and each member had to sign Det. Dosanjh’s copy of the Memo verifying that they had read and understood the contents of the Memo. None of the members raised concerns about the Memo at the meeting.

13. Const. Amato signed the Memo verifying he had read and understood the contents of the Memo.

14. Const. Amato did not raise any concerns about the contents of the Memo at the meeting or at any other time.

15. Items 7 and 8 of the Memo state:

7. When we are out and about we would like a minimum of two officers travelling together.

8. Also we must be informed of your whereabouts at all times. We were told that we could be questioned at any given time about your whereabouts.

16. On July 3, 2012, Det. Dosanjh asked Const. Amato to change his shift for the next day, July 4th, 2012, from the afternoon/evening shift to the morning shift.

17. Const. Amato was originally scheduled to work from 2pm to 10pm on July 4th. There was another IB member (Detective Abbruzzese) who was scheduled to be working with him on that shift so he would not be working alone.

18. On July 3rd, 2012, Det. Abbruzzese requested a change from the afternoon shift to the morning shift for July 4th. The morning shift is from 8am to 4pm. The shift change request would result in Const. Amato working alone in the afternoon.

19. This was why Det. Dosanjh asked Const. Amato to change his shift time from the afternoon to the morning on July 4th, 2012.

20. Const. Amato responded that he would work the earlier shift on July 4th, 2012 and that it was no problem.

21. At 7:54am on July 4th, 2012 Const. Amato sent Det. Dosanjh a Blackberry Messenger message (“BBM”) from his Blackberry phone saying he would not be able to go into the IB unit for the 8am shift because he had some personal commitments he had forgotten about.

22. Const. Amato stated that he would come in for his previously scheduled shift of 2p.m. to 10p.m. and he would come in earlier if possible.

23. Det. Dosanjh responded to the BBM message from Const. Amato, and there was a back forth between them about Const. Amato being on his shift alone. There is a transcript of the BBM conversation, part of that correspondence is listed here below:

Det. Dosanjh: Okay you will be on your own. So just do your thing at your desk because no one else is around.

Const. Amato: I have CPKN to do. And will do. Thank you.

Det. Dosanjh: Okay thanks. See you in the afternoon.

Const. Amato: Yup.

Det. Dosanjh: Also go through those phone bills as well this evening so we can get those out of the way.

Const. Amato: Ok. I will submit sheet to change schedule when I arrive.

Det. Dosanjh: Thanks.

Const. Amato: K.

24. The transcript of the above BBM correspondence was not disputed by either party.

25. At the beginning of his shift Const. Amato informed Det. Dosanjh that he was going to take his lunch then. He also stated that he would take one of the police cars out for that purpose.

26. Const. Amato logged his car unit on air with Dispatch at 2:08pm.

27. During his shift that day Const. Amato did not work on the phone bills, did not do his CPKN and left his desk for several hours, not informing anyone of his whereabouts.

28. At 7:30 p.m. he left the station and he attended two locations in Woodbridge known to be associated with organized crime. He conducted his observations from the car. He conducted this observation session alone. He did not notify dispatch of his location.

29. At the end of this shift Const. Amato entered his “Daily Summary” report into the YRPS electronic reporting system, detailing the observations he made that evening on shift. He then reported off duty.

30. At 7:50 a.m. on July 5th, 2012 Det. Dosanjh reported for duty. He reviewed the Daily Summary report of Const. Amato. He became aware that Const. Amato did not follow his order and instead went out on surveillance alone. Det. Dosanjh did not talk to Const. Amato about this on that day.

31. On July 9th, 2012, Detective Sergeant Almeida (“D/Sgt. Almeida”) who was away on holidays returned for duty. He is a senior officer to Det. Dosanjh and one of his supervisors. Det. Dosanjh spoke with D/Sgt. Almeida about the conduct of Const. Amato on July 4th, 2012.

32. After this discussion with D/Sgt. Almeida, but on the same day, Det. Dosanjh spoke directly with Const. Amato about the inappropriateness of his conduct on July 4th.

33. There was an investigation into Const. Amato’s conduct by the YRPS. The matter was deemed to be misconduct not of a serious nature. Informal resolution was attempted, but Const. Amato declined to participate in the informal resolution.

34. On Tuesday, December 18th, 2012, Const. Amato was served a Notice of Hearing pursuant to section 76 (9) of the Act alleging that on July 4th, 2012 he committed misconduct, namely Insubordination.

Appellant’s Submissions

35. Mr. McKenzie stated that the disciplinary hearing was brief and succinct as there was only one issue: was the message sent from Det. Dosanjh to Const. Amato over the BBM a lawful order?

36. Mr. McKenzie asserted that the word “direct” or “order” is not in the actual BBM message.

37. Mr. McKenzie submitted that the Hearing Officer erred because his decision was not based on clear and cogent evidence. The text message does not constitute a lawful order.

38. Mr. McKenzie asserted that the Hearing Officer erred when he found that the BBM messages from Det. Dosanjh were “clear and unequivocal.”

39. Mr. McKenzie argued that the Hearing Officer did not consider the context of the text, namely: a) the relationship between Det. Dosanjh and Const. Amato and b) Const. Amato’s 5 years of experience in the IB.

40. Const. Amato is a veteran officer with over 26 years of service with the YRPS. He was put in the IB as a privilege which he had earned during his many years of work and dedication.

41. Det. Dosanjh comes in new to the unit while Const. Amato had already worked there for two years. Mr. McKenzie submitted that Const. Amato was an experienced officer and was familiar with the usual practices of the IB.

42. Mr. McKenzie submitted that the text message leaves room for so much to be considered. Det. Dosanjh could have said “shall” or “must” or “I direct”. The text message leaves room for things to be clarified. The words “so just do your thing at your desk because no one else is around” are equivocal. Mr. McKenzie asks: “do what thing? desk bound? for how long?”

43. Mr. McKenzie asserted that the rules aren’t followed perfectly at the IB, that Const. Amato had gone out to do observations on his own at least 12 times before the July 4th occurrence. On that date, Const. Amato was in his vehicle the whole time he was doing the observations.

44. Const. Amato’s usual practice was to go out on observations everyday that he worked. Det. Dosanjh never confronted Const. Amato before this incident.

45. Mr. McKenzie argued that there were many misunderstandings and miscommunications between Const. Amato and Det. Dosanjh. Therefore Det. Dosanjh should have been clearer and more direct in his messaging. He could have said “remain at your desk”. The onus rests on the supervisor to make sure that the order is clear.

46. The message only amounts to a suggestion, not an order. Mr. McKenzie submitted that under cross examination Det. Dosanjh admitted that #7 of the memo was an ideal and that the words “we would like a minimum of two officers travelling together” do not constitute an order or directive.

47. Mr. McKenzie argued that Const. Amato’s evidence that he received Det. Dosanjh’s text as merely a suggestion and not an order was reasonable and should have been accepted by the Hearing Officer and given more weight.

48. Mr. McKenzie submitted that the penalty was too high for this offence. A reprimand would have sufficed.

49. Mr. McKenzie requested an order allowing this appeal and quashing the finding of guilt against Const. Amato.

Respondent’s Submissions

50. Mr. Fraser submitted that the Hearing Officer’s decision was reasonable.

51. Mr. Fraser argued that Const. Amato received a lawful order from his direct supervisor, Det. Dosanjh, to remain at his desk. Without lawful excuse Const. Amato disobeyed this order, left his desk and went on the road.

52. Mr. Fraser agreed with Mr. McKenzie that the main issue on this appeal is whether or not Det. Dosanjh’s message to Const. Amato was an order.

53. Mr. Fraser asserted that the BBM message was clearly an order. He argued that Const. Amato was a long-standing member of the YRPS, and he refused to comply with his new supervisor’s directions.

54. Mr. Fraser stated that the order was clear, but that Const. Amato felt that he was experienced and able to do his job the way he always had done it.

55. It is absurd to suggest that the message was not clear or directive enough. Det. Dosanjh stated very clearly in his message what he wanted Const. Amato to do: “do work at your desk”. There is no way the message can mean “don’t do work at your desk.”

56. Mr. Fraser argued that the method of communication (the BBM message) was not challenged or at issue.

57. Det. Dosanjh did not want Const. Amato to be working alone because that was contrary to the best practices and safety of officers. That is why he asked Const. Amato to work the morning shift.

58. Mr. Fraser submitted that when Const. Amato sent a message six minutes before his scheduled arrival for the morning shift, saying that he could not make it, Det. Dosanjh directed him to stay at his desk for the evening shift because no one else would be on duty at that time.

59. Const. Amato did not do as he was supposed to do and this was part of an ongoing issue. Even though Const. Amato agreed that he would stay at his desk (in the BBM correspondence) and assured Det. Dosanjh that he would just do his CPKN, he did not.

60. Mr. Fraser submitted that in modern policing, an order is rarely given using the phrase “that is an order”. He stated that in Flannigan and Ontario Provincial Police (November 18, 1987, O.P.C.), it was found that a superior officer need not use the words “direct” or “order” when giving an order so long as the direction from the supervisor is clear and unequivocal.

61. Mr. Fraser argued that the Hearing Officer’s finding that there was a lawful order and that Const. Amato disobeyed, neglected or omitted to carry out that order, was based on clear and cogent evidence.

62. In response to the Appellant’s claim that the Hearing Officer failed to give any weight to the context of the relationship between Det. Dosanjh and Const. Amato, Mr. Fraser stated that the Hearing Officer reviewed that context and came to the conclusion that Const. Amato did not always do as directed. This was a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence before him.

63. Mr. Fraser asserted that the Appellant has not advanced any argument to challenge the Hearing Officer’s penalty decision.

64. Mr. Fraser submitted that Insubordination is a serious issue in policing. In this case there is a need for specific and general deterrence. Police officers must follow the orders of their supervisors.

65. Mr. Fraser argued that even though the Appellant has submitted that the issues in this appeal are questions of law, he would argue that they are issues of fact and therefore are reviewable on a standard of reasonableness.

66. Mr. Fraser requested that the Commission dismiss this appeal.

Issues

67. The issues on this appeal are as follows:

(a) Was the Hearing Officer’s decision finding Const. Amato guilty of misconduct reasonable?

(b) Did the Hearing Officer fail to apply the appropriate legal threshold to his findings on credibility?

(c) Was the Hearing Officer’s decision on penalty within the reasonable range of outcomes?

REASONS AND ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

68. The principles to be applied by the Commission on an appellate review of a disciplinary decision are well settled.

69. The standard of review with respect to the Hearing Officer’s interpretation and application of the general law is correctness: see Law Society of Upper Canada v. Neinstein (2010), 2010 ONCA 193, 99 O.R. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.) The standard of review with respect to the Hearing Officer’s factual findings and penalty is reasonableness: see Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick 2008 SCC 9, [2008] S.C.J. No. 9, and Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 (Can LII).

70. The Supreme Court of Canada described the standard of reasonableness as being concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility in the decision-making process, but also with whether the decision falls within a range of possible acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law: see Dunsmuir, supra.

71. The role of the Commission is not to second-guess the decision of the Hearing Officer but rather to review the decision to determine whether the conclusions reached are reasonable, reflect a correct understanding and application of the law, are based on clear and cogent evidence and are articulated in an intelligible, transparent and logical manner: see Precious and Hamilton Police (2002) 3 O.P.R. 1561, (OCCPS); Whitney v. Ontario (Provincial Police) [2007] O.J. No. 2668 (Div. Ct.); and Dunsmuir, supra.

72. In certain limited cases it may be open to the Commission to reach a different conclusion from the one reached by the Hearing Officer. However, we should only intervene if there has been an error in principle, or relevant factors have been ignored: see Williams and Ontario Provincial Police (December 4, 1995, OCCPS); Favretto and Ontario Provincial Police (February 13, 2002, OCCPS); Karklins and Toronto Police Service (September 25, 2007, OCCPS); Wilson and Ontario Provincial Police (November 20, 2006, OCCPS); and Quintieri and Toronto Police Service (2002) 3 O.P.R. 1509 (OCCPS).

73. In the case before us, Mr. McKenzie presented the alleged errors by the Hearing Officer as both errors of law and errors of fact. We find that the errors alleged by the Appellant are errors of fact. Therefore they are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.

74. From page 2 to page 10 of the decision the Hearing Officer laid out the background and key evidence that was presented, including the testimony of Det. Dosanjh and Const. Amato.

75. The Hearing Officer also summarised the arguments of the YRPS and Const. Amato. This summary demonstrates to us that he appreciated and considered the arguments of both parties.

76. The Hearing Officer considered both Flannigan, supra and Orr v. York Regional Police (March 26, 2001, OCCPS). He clearly stated the outcomes and principles of these relevant cases.

77. In our opinion from page 14 to 18 of the decision, the Hearing Officer provides a clear and direct path of reasoning for his conclusions.

78. Taking the reasons of the Hearing Officer in their entirety, we conclude that there has been no misinterpretation of the evidence and no misapplication of law or other manifest error that would justify our intervention in the finding of guilt.

Was the Hearing Officers decision on conduct reasonable and based on clear and cogent evidence?

79. The test to be applied to a question of whether a police officer is guilty of Insubordination is well settled. In Orr vs. York Regional Police, supra, it was held that the four key questions to be determined are:

(a) Did the officer receive an order? (b) If so, was that order lawful?

(c) Did the officer disobey, neglect or omit to carry out that order?

(d) If so, did the officer have a lawful excuse for doing so?

80. We find that the answers to these questions are straightforward. The Hearing Officer went through a careful analysis of each of these questions.

81. In turning to the first question in Orr, supra, did Const. Amato receive an order?

82. In Flannigan, supra, the Commission found that:

An “Order” to be an order does not have to be stated as such. If a direction from a superior is clear and unequivocal it is an order. In this day and age the words “that is an order” would be unusual. (emphasis added)

83. There was no dispute about the content of the BBM conversation between Const. Amato and Det. Dosanjh.

84. When Const. Amato sent his message to Det. Dosanjh stating he couldn’t work the morning shift but would work the afternoon shift instead, Det. Dosanjh responded “Okay you will be on your own. So just do your thing at your desk because no one else is around.” (emphasis added)

85. The Hearing Officer found that Const. Amato was ordered to work at his desk. At page 15 of the decision he states:

The words used by Detective Dosanjh are not in dispute. “Do your thing at your desk because no one else is around.” Taken at their ordinary, everyday meaning the words are not confusing, ambivalent or ambiguous. They are clear and unequivocal. Work in the office. Why? Because no one else is working.

86. We agree with the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that Det. Dosanjh issued an order to Const. Amato to work at his desk. We reject the Appellant’s argument that he thought this meant he could do as he would usually do and go driving in his police vehicle alone to observe organised crime activity.

87. Next the Hearing Officer turned to the question of whether this order was lawful. The Hearing Officer carefully analyzed this question even though Const. Amato had not raised the lawfulness of the order as an issue. At page 16 the Hearing Officer states:

Detective Dosanjh was concerned about Constable Amato working on his own, with no one around. It was a safety issue. Orders issued for reasons of safety are valid, lawful orders.

88. We agree with the Hearing Officer, and we also find that when a supervisor of a police officer orders him/her to follow work related orders it is incumbent upon the officer to either follow the order or immediately raise a concern with it. Const. Amato’s response to the order was “I have CPKN to do. And will do. Thank you.” (emphasis added) Const. Amato did not at any point raise a concern with this order or make a request to do other than work at his desk. The BBM transcript provides clearly that Const. Amato agreed to the order.

89. The question of whether Const. Amato disobeyed, neglected or omitted to carry out the order is also succinctly answered by the Hearing Officer. At page 17 he states:

The evidence is crystal clear. Constable Amato testified that he did not work in the office on July 4, 2012. I find as a fact that Constable Amato disobeyed, neglected or omitted to carry out the order given by Detective Dosanjh.

90. We find that the evidence on this question is clear.

91. Finally the Hearing Officer turned to the last question in the Orr, supra, test, whether or not Const. Amato had a lawful excuse to disobey the order.

92. The Hearing Officer could not find any evidence that would support a conclusion that Const. Amato had a lawful reason to disobey the order given to him. At page 18 he states:

Constable Amato had a duty to follow his order, to work in the office on July 4, 2012. He chose not to.

93. From our review of the record we agree with this conclusion. The evidence offers no reason why Const. Amato could not have worked at his desk on July 4, 2012.

94. The undisputed BBM exchange between Const. Amato and Det. Dosanjh provides a credible evidentiary foundation for the matter before us which was supported by the testimony of witnesses at the hearing. All of this evidence was fully and clearly outlined by the Hearing Officer. We reject the Appellant’s argument that the Hearing Officer’s decision was without evidentiary foundation.

95. The Hearing Officer followed a clear line of reasoning in reaching the finding of guilt. He determined the answers to the questions set out in Orr, supra, he concluded that Const. Amato had been given an order by Det. Dosanjh and that Const. Amato did not obey that order. We find these findings to be reasonable.

Did the Hearing Officer base his findings on credibility on the appropriate legal thresholds?

96. An appeal to the Commission is an appeal on the record. Unlike a hearing officer, we do not have the advantage of hearing and observing the witnesses as they testify. Deference must be accorded to the Hearing Officer’s findings on credibility, unless an examination of the record shows that the Hearing Officer’s conclusions cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence. Blowes-Aybar and Toronto (City) Police Service, 2004 Carswell Ont 1583 (Div. Ct.).

97. The Commission is clear that we are not to effectively retry the case and substitute our findings of credibility. Blowes- Aybar, supra and Williams, supra.

98. In Williams, supra, the Commission held:

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 on the strongest ground. In other words, there can be no other determination than the conclusions of the Adjudicator, as to credibility of witnesses, cannot be reasonably accepted. The question to be asked in this case is, are the conclusions of the Adjudicator void of evidentiary foundation.

99. We do find that the Hearing Officer’s findings of credibility are supported by the evidence. The Hearing Officer was very clear why he preferred the evidence of the YRPS. He found the evidence of Const. Amato to be unbelievable.

100. Following our review of the record, it is not possible for this Panel to believe that Const. Amato did not understand what “stay at your desk” meant.

101. We agree with the Hearing Officer’s finding that Const. Amato’s evidence and reasons for his actions were unacceptable. At page 15 of the decision, the Hearing Officer states that:

I am unable to accept Const. Amato’s evidence that he understood these words [do your thing at your desk] to mean that he should perform his duties as he normally would.

102. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer was not persuaded that Const. Amato believed it was problematic not to follow his supervisor’s orders. We agree with this as well.

103. From our review of the record it would appear that Const. Amato regularly disregarded his supervisor’s directions. Indeed one of the Appellant’s arguments was that even though Det. Dosanjh had instituted the Memo as direction to the IB officers, Const. Amato regularly disregarded it.

104. On this appeal the Appellant argued that since this memo was issued he has gone out on his own in the police vehicle at least 12 times. This demonstrates a chronic issue not in favour of the Appellant.

105. The Appellant argued that there were misunderstandings between Const. Amato and Det. Dosanjh and that this issue is an example of their miscommunication. From our review of the record there was no miscommunication on the part of Det. Dosanjh and there was no misunderstanding of the order by Const. Amato. The communication of the order and the agreement to follow the order is clearly articulated in the BBM conversation transcript.

106. The Hearing Officer accepted Det. Dosanjh’s evidence that Const. Amato did not always do as directed. Based on the record, we find this wholly reasonable.

107. As the trier of fact, the Hearing Officer is mandated to assess credibility and weigh the relevant evidence before him. In his decision, he summarized the evidentiary elements he considered and outlined how they led to his conclusions. Based on the evidence, we find no error in his evaluation of the evidence or his findings on credibility.

Was the Hearing Officers decision on penalty within the reasonable range of outcomes?

108. While the Appellant raised the issue, he provided very little by way of argument on it. Nonetheless we provide a brief analysis of the Hearing Officer’s decision on penalty.

109. We find that the Hearing Officer assessed the relevant factors in reaching his decision on penalty as per Williams, supra, namely:

• the nature and seriousness of the misconduct;
• the officer's ability to reform and rehabilitate;
• damage to the reputation of the Service;
• the officer’s employment history and experience;
• the officer’s recognition of the seriousness of the misconduct;
• the need for general and specific deterrence; and
• consistency with prior disciplinary decisions.

110. The Hearing Officer reviewed all of the factors individually and found that specific and general deterrence were the most important to address. At page 11 of the penalty decision he states:

The fact that lawful orders must be obeyed has to be conveyed to all members of the Service.

We agree.

111. In Orr, supra, the Commission stated:

It is critical that police officers follow legal orders issued to them considering the special status that they have in society... It is critical for the operation of a police service that a police officer obeys orders and accounts for his or her actions in the course of performing their official duties.

112. If a police officer does not follow orders, how can she/he then expect to require citizens to follow the law and obey his/her orders? This would be hypocritical and is partly the reason why Insubordination by a police officer is such a serious offence.

113. The Hearing Officer found that Const. Amato “is a veteran of the Service and at that time was a long serving member of the IB. He had to be aware that more junior officers might model their behaviour after his.” He found this to be an aggravating factor.

114. The Hearing Officer considered Constable Amato’s long career with the YRPS to be a mitigating factor. At page 7 of the penalty decision he states:

Put together we have an officer with 26 years of service, no prior discipline, multiple recognitions and letters of thanks, and some expertise in a particular area of policing.

115. He found it of utmost importance to speak to general deterrence in this penalty, at page 9 of the penalty decision he states “Police Services are paramilitary organizations. Orders and directions are given on a regular basis and they must be followed.” He gave a whole page of his decision to this one factor.

116. The Hearing Officer considered the range of penalty put to him by both counsel: from a reprimand up to 16 hours forfeiture of pay. After weighing all the factors he decided that Const. Amato should forfeit 8 hours of work.

117. We find that the Hearing Officer’s decision on penalty is reasonable, reflects a correct understanding and application of the law, is based upon the clear and cogent evidence contained in the record, and is articulated in a logical manner.

Conclusion

118. For the reasons set out above, we dismiss the appeals from conviction and penalty.

DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014

Zahra Dhanani Member, OCPC