DATE:

June 12, 2017

FILE:

OCPC 16-ADJ-008

CASE NAME:

PAIGE AND HANOVER POLICE SERVICE

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 87(1) OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, AS AMENDED

BETWEEN:

CONSTABLE ROBIN PAIGE

Appellant

-and-

HANOVER POLICE SERVICE

Respondent

DECISION

Panel:

D. Stephen Jovanovic, Associate Chair Jacqueline Castel, Member

John Kromkamp, Member

Hearing Date:

October 4, 2016

Hearing Location:

Ontario Civilian Police Commission 250 Dundas Street West, Suite 605 Toronto, ON M7A 2T3

Appearances:

Benjamin E. Jefferies, Counsel for the Appellant

Ian B. Johnstone and Philip Wright, Counsel for the Respondent

I. Introduction

1. This appeal arises from the decision of Deputy Chief Terence Kelly (retired), (the Hearing Officer) dated October 15, 2015 wherein he found the appellant guilty of two offences under subsections 2(1)(a)(xi) and 2(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Conduct, Ontario Regulation 268/10 (the Code), under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15 (the PSA). The first offence was Discreditable Conduct and the second, arising from the same incident, Insubordination.

2. In a second decision dated April 15, 2016 the Hearing Officer ordered the immediate dismissal of the appellant. In this appeal, the appellant has requested that the convictions be set aside and that he be reinstated to his position with the respondent. In the alternative, he requests a new hearing.

II. Decision

3. For the reasons that follow the Commission revokes the finding of guilt on the charge of Discreditable Conduct and revokes the finding of guilt on the charge of Insubordination.

4. The Commission orders that a new hearing on the two charges be convened.

III. Background

5. On January 19, 2015, the appellant, in his capacity as president of the Hanover Police Association attended a PSA hearing involving charges of misconduct against another officer (Breen) with the respondent. He was dressed in civilian clothing and did not have his firearm or any other use of force equipment with him. The court reporter assigned to record that proceeding, Ms. Bowie, detected the odour of alcohol on the appellant’s breath and advised Superintendent Elbers, the hearing officer in that matter of her concerns.

6. Superintendent Elbers had previously presided over two PSA disciplinary proceedings involving the appellant who acknowledged, in those matters, being under the influence of alcohol while on duty.

7. Superintendent Elbers advised two representatives of the respondent, Chief David and Inspector Knoll, of the observations of Ms. Bowie. Chief David and Inspector Knoll then met with the appellant outside of the hearing room.

8. Inspector Knoll testified that he too detected the odour of alcohol on the appellant’s breath