FILE: 2015 ONCPC 19
CASE NAME: Chief John Gauthier of the Timmins Police Service
IN THE MATTER OF a hearing under section 25 of the police services act r.s.o. 1990, c.p.15 as amended into the conduct of:
CHIEF JOHN GAUTHIER of the TIMMINS POLICE SERVICE
Panel: Zahra Dhanani, Member
Hearing Dates: June 11 and 12, 2015
Hearing Location: Timmins, Ontario
Appearances:
The Ontario Civilian Police Commission: Victoria Kondo and Erin Rizok for the Commission
Chief Gauthier: Ian Johnstone and Alex Sinclair for Chief Gauthier
DECISION
A. Introduction
ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION
A hearing by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (the “Commission”) was held on several dates with regard to the conduct of Chief John Gauthier (the “Chief”) of the Timmins Police Service (the “Service”).
The hearing resulted from an investigation by the Commission on its own motion to inquire into and report on such conduct pursuant to the s. 25(1) of the Police Services Act, as amended (the “Act”).
At the conduct hearing on March 30, 2015, counsel for the parties indicated to the Panel that if the allegation in the Notice of Hearing were amended, the Chief would enter a plea of guilty. After a short adjournment, an amended Notice of Hearing (“amended Notice”) was placed into evidence (Ex. E). The allegation set out reads:
It is alleged that Chief Gauthier acted in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Service, and did thereby engage in Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct contained in the Schedule to Ontario Regulation 268/10, as amended, and did thereby commit misconduct pursuant to section 30(1) of the Regulation and section 80(1)(a) of the Act.
An Agreed Statement of Facts (Agreed Statement) (attached below as Schedule A, Ex. A) was read into the record. In para. 20 of the Agreed Statement, there is reference to a standing order of the Service issued by former Chief Lavoie in January 2001. A copy of that standing order – R001-2001 dated January 31, 2001 (the Order) was placed into evidence (Ex. B). The reference line reads “Re: Cancellation or Withdrawal of Provincial Offence & Municipal Parking Tickets.”
As a result of the amended Notice and the introduction of the Order, Chief Gauthier pled “guilty.”
At the hearing on penalty ten witnesses testified, counsel provided authorities and made oral submissions.
B. Decision
- I direct the Timmins Police Services Board to impose a penalty upon the Chief of forfeiture of 5 days of work or 40 hours of pay.
C. Background
The details of this matter are attached in the Agreed Statement. In brief, on May 19th, 2013, Constable Kevin Clement (“Const. Clement”) issued two Certificates of Offence, also known as, Provincial Offence Notices (“PONs”) to Mr. Gary Scripnick (a Timmins city councillor), for going through a red light and for failure to produce proof of valid automobile insurance.
Subsequent to this Chief Gauthier cancelled the two PONs issued to Mr. Scripnik.
D. Preliminary Matter
Mr. Gavsie, the panel member who originally also heard the conduct matter with me, had become incapacitated days before the penalty hearing. I was designated as the sole adjudicator for the penalty hearing. This was addressed with the parties at the beginning of the hearing.
After a brief discussion, both counsel agreed to proceed immediately.
E. Analysis
Section 25(4) of the Act states that if the Commission concludes, after a hearing, that the conduct of a police officer or municipal chief of police is proved on clear and convincing evidence to be misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance, it may direct any action described in section 85, as specified by the Commission, be taken with respect to the police officer or municipal chief of police.
The panel must review the appropriate factors and balance the competing elements to ensure that the proposed penalty is reasonable.
Over 15 factors can be examined when addressing penalty: see Legal Aspects of Policing by Paul Ceyssens (2012 ed.) I am not expected to review all of these factors but to decipher which factors are the most relevant in achieving the appropriate remedy in each case.
Relevant penalty considerations include: the nature and seriousness of the conduct, the officer’s ability to reform and rehabilitate, damage to the reputation of the police service, the need for specific and general deterrence, management’s approach to misconduct, aggravating and mitigating factors and consistency with prior disciplinary decisions in dealing with similar conduct. Other relevant concerns include employment history and experience, recognition of the seriousness of the misconduct, any handicap and other relevant or personal circumstances: Williams and Ontario Provincial Police (December 4, 1995, OCCPS).
The role of a chief of police is vital in the functioning of police services in the Province of Ontario. A chief of police is the highest-ranking officer of his or her service and is therefore held to the highest standard of conduct. Implicit in the Commission’s prior decisions is the principle that with high rank and responsibility comes great accountability.
I find that the issues in this decision are very narrow. This is not an analysis of what happened between Mr. Scripnik and Const. Clement; it is not about whether the red light at Lafleur Drive and Shirley Street in Timmins was working. This decision specifically addresses Chief Gauthier’s actions in canceling two PON’s.
I find that the most relevant penalty factor in this case is general deterrence; it is at the crux of this decision. Traffic tickets must not be cancelled without following the proper procedures and in this case, the cancellation of the traffic tickets was inappropriate.
Employment history
I acknowledge the Chief’s exemplary employment record and his long-standing commitment to policing in Ontario.
Almost all of the witnesses, even the witness for the Commission, testified Chief Gauthier had a stellar reputation and was of good character. The witnesses were all consistent in stating their respect for Chief Gauthier, their belief that he was very good at his job and that he was dedicated to his role as Chief. The witnesses’ high opinions of the Chief were unchanged even after reading the Agreed Statement.
Mr. Tom Laughren, who was the Mayor of Timmins at the time of the incidents relevant to this matter, testified that he was “proud to call the Chief the leader of the Police”. Mr. Laughren testified that he was part of Chief Gauthier’s hiring process; he stated that the Chief “was always friendly, courteous, helpful and well-respected. We hired the best person for the job, he has an exemplary police record ... and he goes above and beyond the call of duty. I have always been and am still very supportive of the Chief.” Mr. Laughren was the witness brought by the Commission.
Mr. Joe Torlone, Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Timmins for over 13 years, stated that Chief Gauthier was “very professional, forthright, had great integrity and has a strong will.”
Ms. Emilene Dumoulin, the Executive Director of the Timmins Victims Services, stated that Chief Gauthier “has made a huge difference in the community” and that “John is one of the most honest men that I have met”. She remembered his swearing in speech, where he mentioned victim services. She spoke of the Chief’s direct work with some of her clients and the impact of his frontline service. She also spoke of the lengths that the Chief went to ensure that Victims’ Services could continue despite increased cuts to their funding. She stated, “we needed help and he helped us in every way he possibly could.”
The Chief’s employment history is mitigating. His reputation with many members of the Timmins community is outstanding.
From the testimony at the penalty hearing, Chief Gauthier’s relationship with the community is an example of a Chief that treats members of the public with caring, humility and respect.
Nature and Seriousness of the Misconduct
- At the hearing on conduct, Chief Gauthier provided the panel with the Order to the Timmins Police Service, issued by the then Chief Denis Lavoie, stating:
Provincial Offence Tickets are not to be cancelled period! The only exception to that would be when the Issuing Officer makes a serious error while issuing the ticket and he/she VOIDS it right at the scene by writing VOID across it and signing it along with his/her badge number. After the ticket is issued, it is not to be cancelled but may be withdrawn through the Court Officer with the approval of the Traffic Sergeant or higher authority. There must be a valid reason for asking for the withdrawal and that withdrawal can only be done through a request to the court and proper documentation.
Because of finding the Order, the Chief pled guilty. It is noted that the Chief brought the Order forward to the Commission voluntarily and this is taken to be a mitigating factor.
An integral function of a chief of police is the management of his or her police officers. The Chief is expected to do this not only through the chain of command but also through exemplifying the conduct expected of the officers in the force.
All police officers must respect and uphold the Rule of Law that is the foundation of policing in Ontario. The Commission argued that the conduct in question is serious because of the disregard for a fundamental principle of our democratic system: that not only justice is done but also justice is seen to be done. See R v. Hill, 1997 BCPC 10.
I agree. Public accountability and the integrity of the administration of justice is why this matter is even before the Commission. As stated in Hill, supra, the court articulated what is at stake when traffic tickets are cancelled. It sounds like a minor issue but it is not:
Preservation of the Rule of Law demands that the public be able to have confidence in those who are entrusted with the administration of justice, especially bearing in mind the considerable power given to those persons and their institutions.
In the Agreed Statement, the Chief acknowledged that he cancelled 2 PON’s issued to Mr. Scripnik, one for going through a red light and one for not having his proof of automobile insurance in his car.
He also acknowledged that Mr. Scripnik admitted to going through the red light and that he did not have the appropriate insurance coverage in his car at the time of the traffic stop. The issuing officer did not make an error when the ticket was issued and there was no valid reason for withdrawing the ticket.
It was also clear from the Agreed Statement that the Chief did not speak to Const. Clement about the incident before he decided to proceed with canceling the PON’s.
It is very concerning that regardless of the lack of awareness of the Order, that the Chief would cancel the PON’s without discussing the matter with the issuing officer, and considering the optics to the public, Const. Clement and the force as a whole.
The Chief submitted he made an “honest mistake”. While I understand that chiefs of police, are human and not perfect, this kind of mistake is too costly to be made, and therefore should never be made, especially because it is not an inadvertent act but occurs by conscious choice.
The Chief chose to cancel the tickets. He chose to cancel them without speaking to the issuing officer. He made very clear choices in this case.
I understand that the Chief had cause for concern with the performance of the red light and that he understood why Mr. Scripnik was very frustrated with the situation with the light at that intersection. This however does not vitiate the need to act in accordance with the fair administration of justice.
The Commission argued that in this case the actions of the Chief in canceling traffic tickets for a City Councillor gives the public a perception of bias from the Service towards a politician, which violates a fundamental principle enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms1, that everyone is equal before the law. Whether the Chief intended to give preferential treatment to Mr. Scripnik, has not been proven, but it does not matter, the possibility for perceived bias is there.
1Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1
The claim that the Chief’s actions had good intentions behind them does not provide a lawful excuse for the neglect of procedure.
Attaining the rank of chief necessitates the ability to control human compulsions and emotions in order to manage and respond effectively to all situations. That control is supported by rules and procedures that must be followed by everyone in the Service. For the Chief to do otherwise, encourages a system that promotes unfairness.
The conduct of the Chief in the circumstances of this case is very serious, as it has undermined the Rule of Law. This is evidenced not only by the complaint made to the Commission but by all of the media accounts.
Furthermore, the possibility for the perception that some people can circumvent the legal requirements cannot be tolerated. No one should be able to circumvent proper legal procedures, not even the Chief.
Ability to Reform or Rehabilitate
I accept the Chief’s guilty plea as evidence that he takes responsibility for his actions.
I agree with the Chief’s submission that he has already paid a high price for his actions, including great stress and embarrassment to himself and his family, public humiliation in the media and of course the stain that has been created on an otherwise admirable career and reputation.
There was no evidence before the panel that the conduct itself in this case was based in personal gain. The Commission argued that because Mr. Scripnik was a City Councillor, that has some power over the Chief and the Service budget, this could suggest motivation behind the Chief’s actions. I find that this argument was neither proven nor substantiated.
While I am by no means ignorant to the relationship between city councillors and chiefs of police, I cannot say from the evidence before me that Chief Gauthier was acting out of a motivation to get the favor of this City Councillor.
It is very clear from the evidence that City Councillor, Gary Scripnik, received a gain: both of the tickets issued to him were cancelled, he did not have to go to court and he did not have to pay the $325.00 in fines. There is no evidence however, as to any actual gain that Chief Gauthier received from his actions.
I find that the issue of reform or rehabilitation is a mitigating factor. All of the witnesses, even the Commission’s witness, testified that Chief Gauthier is of excellent character, is respected as the Chief of Police in Timmins and has a stellar record of accomplishment with the Community.
Sergeant Yee, an officer with the Service for over 22 years testified that the morale of the Service seems fine and in good order. Despite testifying that he would expect to be consulted if one of the tickets he issued was to be over-ridden, he stated that he believed that the Chief was dedicated to his job and was still well respected.
Based on the testimony, I find the Chief continues to have the confidence of the Service and the community. His ability to be an effective leader, trusted by his peers and subordinates, has not been extinguished.
The Chief’s employment history and the actions of the Chief in admitting his mistake and accepting responsibility confirm that there is no concern for the Chief’s ability to correct his behavior. I find that reform is not a concern in this case.
Public Interest and General Deterrence
The Chief is in an esteemed role. Because he is in a highly regarded position, it is even more important to underscore that anyone in this position must think, get counsel, investigate, double-check and think again before they do anything that would be perceived as going above the law. This cannot be something that is done without all the appropriate legal processes and procedures in place.
The lesson to be learnt by all chiefs of police and senior members of the police forces in Ontario, is to be careful to follow the law at all times. No one in Ontario or Canada for that matter is above the law.
I find that specific deterrence is not an issue, as I have no concern that the Chief will repeat these actions.
General deterrence is the factor that has been most determinative to penalty in this case. Those in positions of authority in the management of police services must adhere strictly to the law, acting otherwise is not tolerable.
Public interest is also a key sentencing factor that informs the decision on penalty.
The public’s trust in police and policing is a crucial element of effective policing. Every time that public trust is undermined, effective policing is at risk.
The people of Ontario expect police to treat everyone fairly. Police services in Ontario should always exemplify the fair administration of justice for all. The public interest requires that conduct be set firmly in the democratic and fundamental principles of equality and justice for all.
F. Findings
In considering the question of penalty, I have reviewed the transcripts and exhibits filed. I have also had the benefit of the oral submissions of Mr. Johnstone and Ms. Kondo.
The Chief submitted that he has been through enough and that a reprimand would be sufficient in this case. He further submitted that this was a relatively minor infraction and that he acted in good faith without knowledge of the Order.
The Commission submitted that the appropriate penalty in this case would be a forfeiture of ten days work. Further, the Commission argued that the Chief engaged in conduct likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Service. It submitted that while the cancellation of two PON’s may be seen as lower scale offenses, the gravity of the situation stems from what this represents. The Commission further argued that the actions of the Chief call into question the integrity of policing and the equal application of the law by the police.
After careful consideration of all the factors, I find that the appropriate penalty falls squarely in the middle, between the penalties proposed by both counsel.
The mitigating factors in this case are balanced by the aggravating factors.
It is clear that the Chief enjoys a reputation of respect and trust by many officers, administrators and citizens in Timmins. I did not find that there was any personal gain or motivation for his actions. The evidence presented illustrated that the Chief has demonstrated an extremely dedicated work ethic and a willingness to step in where required. The Chief took responsibility for his actions when he pled guilty. There was no evidence led suggesting that this was a pattern of behaviour for the Chief. I note that the Chief has been subjected to public scrutiny that has likely caused stress to both himself and his family.
The aggravating factor here is indeed what the Chief’s actions could be seen to represent to other officers and to the public. Traffic tickets should never be cancelled without following the appropriate procedures. This situation, where the Chief cancelled two traffic tickets of a city councillor presents three very serious problems: 1) It undermines the officer who gave the tickets, 2) It could be perceived as preferential treatment for a politician and 3) It is contrary to the Order and legal procedures.
Were it not for all of the mitigating factors in this case, the panel would be inclined to present a penalty in the higher end of the spectrum.
I find that regardless of whether there was an Order in place regarding traffic tickets, the tickets should not have been cancelled without consulting the issuing officer and following the proper administrative procedures.
The Chief argued he pled guilty as soon as he found the Order, and because he did not know about the Order prior to the hearing, he did not know that his actions contravened any authority. I find this argument quite concerning.
This case is not just about the Chief violating a standing order.
The Chief is charged with and has pled guilty to “acting in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Service...”
Whether the Chief intended to show favoritism to Mr. Scripnik is not the issue. When the Chief cancelled the PON’s legally issued to Mr. Scripnik (a politician), he acted in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Service because it can be perceived as a chief of police showing favoritism to a politician.
Despite the concerns that Mr. Scripnik had with the red light, driving through a red light and driving without valid proof of insurance is against the law. Once those tickets were issued, they were a matter for a court to decide.
At the least, I would expect that the Chief would consult with his officers on tickets that they issued lawfully. I would expect that the Chief would consider the public perception of taking actions that would circumvent the administration of justice (such as canceling the tickets) especially where there is a person with public authority involved (such as a politician).
For the Chief not to have considered the possible implications for the Service, and to put the Service in a situation like this, was for the Chief to have forgotten that he too was subject to following the appropriate procedures. Those tickets were not for him to deal with. Once issued, the tickets were a matter for the court to deal with.
The case law that provided the most guidance to this panel were the cases of Chief Bruce Davis of the South Simcoe Police Service (September 8, 2011, OCPC) and Chief Brian T. Foley of the Stirling Rawdon Police Service (August 21, 2012). Both cases involve chiefs of municipal police forces.
In both cases, the misconduct was serious. Both chiefs had exemplary employment records and committed a single act of misconduct but corrected their errors shortly after the incident because they felt it was the right thing to do. Both cooperated in the investigations and demonstrated remorse. These were significant mitigating factors. However, in the case of Chief Foley an additional mitigating factor had to be considered, namely intention or motivation. Chief Foley was motivated by concern for the safety of a citizen. He knew that what he was doing was wrong, but he acted with the best of intentions. His good intentions did not justify, but did explain, his conduct.
The only differences in the case before me was that the Chief did not correct his error and that intention or motivation while argued by both parties was not conclusively proven, as it was in Chief Foley, supra.
Therefore, I take guidance on penalty from the penalty determination in Chief Davis, supra. In that case, not to impose any penalty would have been inappropriate. A review of comparator cases suggested that a reprimand was insufficient. Considering the various sentencing factors, the nature of the misconduct and the management role of a chief, it was deemed that forfeiture of five days off was the most appropriate and consistent penalty.
This penalty decision is based on the seriousness of the misconduct, the public interest and the need for general deterrence when it comes to the adherence to procedural fairness. I believe that a penalty is necessary to make note of the significance of this kind of error.
“No penalty” is not appropriate in this case. I find that a reprimand is also not sufficient. At the same time, the highest end of the penalties proposed by the Ms. Kondo, namely: ten days forfeiture of work, does not consider all of the mitigating factors in this case. However, the forfeiture of five days represents a penalty that reflects the circumstances of this case while recognizing that that this type of behaviour should never be engaged in by a chief of police.
Therefore, considering all of the sentencing factors and the most relevant precedents, the most appropriate penalty in this case is the forfeiture of 5 days of work or 40 hours of pay.
Finally, this penalty is meant to demonstrate the importance the Commission places on the behaviour of someone in the management role of the Chief and the impact that a chief’s actions has on the public and the police officers she or he directs.
G. Decision
- For the reasons set out above, I direct the Timmins Police Services Board to impose a penalty upon the Chief of forfeiture of 5 days of work or 40 hours of pay.
Dated at Toronto this 15th day of October, 2015
Zahra Dhanani
Member
Schedule “A”
Agreed Statement of Facts
On May 19, 2013, Timmins city councillor, Gary Scripnick, was stopped at a red light at the intersection of Lafleur Drive and Shirley Street in Timmins, Ontario. He was going northbound on Shirley Street. Mr. Scripnick had previously complained that this light malfunctioned and did not change from red to green when oncoming traffic approached. These complaints were made in city council meetings on October 17, 2011, September 10, 2012 and June 24, 2013, to the City Engineer and reported in an article in the Timmins Daily Press on October 17, 2011.
Constable Kevin Clement of the Timmins Police Service (“TPS”) pulled up behind Mr. Scripnick at the red light. Mr. Scripnick exited his truck and approached Cst. Clement’s window to ask him for assistance with the malfunctioning light. Cst. Clement did not recognize Mr. Scripnick as a city councillor and was not aware that the light had malfunctioned in the past. Cst. Clement told Mr. Scripnick that he would have to complain to city council or the city’s engineering department. Mr. Scripnick was frustrated and told Cst. Clement that he was going to go through the red light. Cst. Clement did not tell Mr. Scripnick not to proceed through the red light.
3.Mr. Scripnick returned to his truck, waited for three cars turning left from Lafleur Drive onto Shirley Street and drove through the red light. Cst. Clement activated his emergency lights, followed Mr. Scripnick through the intersection and pulled him over. Both Cst. Clement and Mr. Scripnick exited their vehicles.
Mr. Scripnick told Cst. Clement that he was a city councillor and told Cst. Clement to call his supervisor. Cst. Clement described Mr. Scripnick as agitated. The insurance that Mr. Scripnick gave to Cst. Clement was expired. Mr. Scripnick explained that his house was approximately 150 meters away from the location he had been pulled over and that, if allowed to proceed to his home, he could produce a valid insurance card immediately.
Cst. Clement returned to his car and announced the traffic stop over the radio. While he was in his car, he had a call on his personal cellphone with Cst. Matthew Beerman who advised him that he had recently issued Mr. Scripnick a ticket for a red light infraction and given him a warning for not having a valid insurance slip in his vehicle.
Cst. Clement also called his supervisor, Staff Sargeant Danny Charest, who advised Cst. Clement that he was not aware of any problems with the lights at the intersection of Lafleur Drive and Shirley Street and that Mr. Scripnick was not exempt from the Highway Traffic Act as a city councillor. Cst. Clement advised S/Sgt. Charest that he thought Mr. Scripnick was going to lodge a complaint about him.
Cst. Clement exercised his discretion to issue two Certificates of Offence, also known as, Provincial Offence Notices (“PONs”) to Mr. Scripnick for going through a red light and for failure to produce valid insurance. Cst. Clement returned to Mr. Scripnick’s truck to serve him with the tickets. Mr. Scripnick recorded this particular conversation and advised Cst. Clement he was doing the same. Cst. Clement also advised that the conversation was being recorded. The interaction was recorded by the in dash-camera in Cst. Clement’s patrol car, but the audio was not turned on.
Following the traffic stop, Cst. Clement observed the lights at Lafleur Drive and Shirley Street to assess whether they were malfunctioning. He did not observe any problems for approximately 16 minutes. He also emailed S/Sgt. Charest and Sergeant Chypyha describing the traffic stop and asked them to forward his email to Chief Gauthier. He placed his copy of the PONs in the locked box for PONs in the traffic department.
Following the traffic stop, Mr. Scripnick sent Chief Gauthier and the mayor of Timmins, Tom Laughren, multiple emails about the traffic stop including his audio recording of his conversation with Cst. Clement. Mr. Scripnick did not like the manner in which Cst. Clement spoke to him and wanted Chief Gauthier to be aware of how he was treated. Mayor Laughren forwarded the emails he received to Chief Gauthier.
Chief Gauthier was away for the May long weekend. Upon Chief Gauthier’s return from his vacation, he responded to Mayor Laughren’s email. Chief Gauthier went to Mr. Scripnick’s home on Monday, May 20, 2013. Chief Gauthier and Mr. Scripnick went to the intersection and drove through it at least three times. The lights were functioning properly each time. Mr. Scripnick told Chief Gauthier that there are times when the lights do not function properly.
Chief Gauthier and Mr. Scripnick returned to Mr. Scripnick’s residence on the statutory holiday. The Chief was in plain clothes and driving his police car, which is unmarked. The Chief and Mr. Scripnick met for approximately 30 minutes.
Following his meeting with Mr. Scripnick, Chief Gauthier emailed Cst. Clement. He reiterated that Mr. Scripnick has had an issue with the lights at the intersection for quite some time and brought it up at council meetings in the past. Chief Gauthier stated that Mr. Scripnick “acknowledges that he should have been more patient, that he did go through the red light, and that he should have waited for you to tell him to go through”. He also requested that Cst. Clement not to process the PONs. If Cst. Clement still had the PONs, Chief Gauthier asked that he place them in an envelope for him. If they were already in the locked box, he advised he could have them removed. Cst. Clement advised S/Sgt. Charest of this email.
Chief Gauthier did not speak to Cst. Clement about the traffic stop or hear Cst. Clement’s version of events from him directly.
S/Sgt. Charest emailed Chief Gauthier, forwarding a copy of Cst. Clement’s email from the previous day describing the traffic stop. In his email, S/Sgt. Charest agreed with Cst. Clement’s decision to issue the PONs to Mr. Scripnick. S/Sgt. Charest also stated that he did not disagree with Cst. Clement’s frustration that Chief Gauthier decided to cancel the PONs without talking to Cst. Clement.
After meeting with Mr. Scripnick, Chief Gauthier decided to cancel the PONs. In deciding to cancel the PONs, Chief Gauthier listened to Mr. Scripnick’s account and his audio recordings. He did not have any discussion with Cst. Clement or S/Sgt. Charest, he did not view the in dash camera recording and he did not know about the recent ticket for a red light infraction and warning for not having a valid insurance slip.
In a responding email to S/Sgt. Charest, Chief Gauthier stated that he did not disagree with S/Sgt. Charest, that Cst. Clement did the right thing and that he was “proud of the way he handled it”. However, Chief Gauthier remained uncomfortable with Cst. Clement’s exercise of discretion in the circumstances, particularly the Chief’s knowledge of the outstanding issues with the traffic light at Shirley Street and Lafleur Drive. Further, the Chief was not comfortable with Cst. Clement’s failure to instruct Mr. Scripnick not to proceed through the red light and his subsequent decision to issue the insurance ticket, less than 150 meters from Mr. Scripnick’s home.
As Cst. Clement had already put the PONs in the locked box, S/Sgt. Charest removed them from the locked box and gave them to Chief Gauthier. Chief Gauthier took the PONs to his home. The PONs were never processed. Mr. Scripnick did not have to pay the $390.00 associated fines or attend court to dispute the PONs. Chief Gauthier advised Mr. Scripnick that the PONs had been taken care of.
At no time did Mr. Scripnick or Mayor Laughren ask Chief Gauthier to cancel the PONs.
Investigations into the Chief’s actions conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) did not uncover any standing order or other policies of the Timmins Police Service that the Chief’s actions may have violated.
In preparing his defence, Chief Gauthier came across the Order issued by former Chief Lavoie in January of 2001. This standing order states provincial offence tickets are not to be cancelled, but may be withdrawn through the Court Officer with the approval of the Traffic Sergeant or higher authority. The Order states that there must be a valid reason for asking for the withdrawal and that withdrawal can only be done through a request to the court and proper documentation.
The Chief was not aware of the standing order at the time of making his decision to cancel the PONs. However, he acknowledges that his actions in cancelling the PONs were not consistent with this standing order because he did not follow the outlined process for withdrawing a ticket.
The investigations surrounding the cancellation of the PONs have been reported in the media.
The Chief admits that his actions in cancelling the PONs, in the circumstances set out in this Agreed Statement of Facts, constitutes discreditable conduct contrary to section 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct because his actions were likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Timmins Police Service.
Footnotes
- Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1.