Skip to content

Sudbury officer accused of assault back in Espanola court

GSPS Const. Melisa Rancourt, who faced disciplinary action during the pandemic after being arrested due to her refusal to show proof of vaccination, is accused of assaulting a 12-year-old hockey player
281022_melisa-rancourt-gofundme
Greater Sudbury Police officer Melisa Rancourt appeared virtually in Espanola court on April 22, a second appearance for charges including assault, uttering threats (death or bodily harm) and causing a disturbance. 

A Greater Sudbury Police officer appeared virtually in Espanola court on April 22, a second appearance for charges including assault, uttering threats (death or bodily harm) and causing a disturbance. 

Melisa Rancourt, a GSPS officer since 2018, was disciplined two years ago for refusing to show proof of vaccination at a hockey arena in Espanola and is facing these new charges after allegedly assaulting a 12-year-old hockey player on Feb. 11. 

Rancourt’s lawyer, Len Walker, told Justice Dana Peterson that after instructions were received from the assigned Crown attorney, David Kirk (who is based out of Sault Ste. Marie), Rancourt would be proceeding with a judicial pre-trial (JPT). Her next appearance in Espanola court is June 17 to update the judge. 

The judicial pre-trial is a meeting between the defence and their client, the Crown, and a judge. The JPT is meant to sort out issues before the trial or, if possible, resolve the case without a trial. Outcomes might include a withdrawal of the charge(s), diversion, or a guilty plea. Unless the case can be resolved, at the conclusion of the judicial pre-trial, a date will usually be set for a guilty plea, preliminary inquiry or trial.

Rancourt was previously charged with resisting arrest and trespassing for an incident at Espanola Recreation Centre in September 2021, when she refused to provide proof of vaccination to attend her child’s hockey game at the Espanola Recreation Centre. Witness told Sudbury.com Rancourt yelled and screamed, called bystanders “nazis” and kicked a door while arguing with an OPP officer called by rec centre staff after the GSPS officer refused to show proof of vaccination.

Rancourt was arrested and charged with resisting a peace officer, and entering a premises when entry has been prohibited, contrary to the Trespass to Property Act (TPA). 

These charges were withdrawn after she completed the diversion offered by John Howard Society’s Direct Accountability Program. Walker was also her attorney on these previous charges. 

At the time the new charges were laid, former Sudbury Police Chief Paul Pedersen said in a release that he launched an internal investigation into Rancourt’s alleged actions in Espanola. 

“Constable Rancourt has subsequently been suspended with pay under Section 89(1) of the Police Services Act of Ontario. Under the current legislation, there is no authority to suspend an officer without pay,” GSPS said in a news release.

Pedersen also issued a statement about Rancourt and the incident, saying while the allegations have not been proven, the actions of one officer do not reflect the values of GSPS.

In October 2022, Rancourt faced a disciplinary hearing to determine what punishment she should face under the Police Services Act for her refusal to show proof of vaccination at a children’s hockey game, as well as subsequent social media posts. 

Superintendent Peter Lennox, the hearing judge for her disciplinary hearing, determined Rancourt should be demoted from first-class constable to third-class constable for a period of one year, followed by one year in the rank of second-class constable, conditional on satisfactory performance of duty by the officer and the concurrence of her unit commander.

She would also be required to perform 40 hours of volunteer work through the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies. Rancourt worked with the organization during her administrative leave in order to better understand her use of the word “nazi.” 

But Rancourt and her lawyer, David Butt, appealed Lennox’s decision. The appeal was heard April 20, 2023, and the decision handed down July 10, 2023. 

Rancourt and Butt argued that the language of the decision, “conditional on satisfactory performance of duty by the officer and the concurrence of her unit commander,” gave too much power to the unit commander.

The panel hearing the appeal agreed, stating: “The penalty of demotion as worded is improper as it gives unfettered discretion to the unit commander.”

There are no other changes to the original decision, writes the panel. “The appeal is otherwise dismissed and the penalty confirmed.” 

Jenny Lamothe is a reporter with Sudbury.com 


Verified reader

If you would like to apply to become a verified commenter, please fill out this form.




Jenny Lamothe

About the Author: Jenny Lamothe

Jenny Lamothe is a reporter with Sudbury.com. She covers the diverse communities of Sudbury, especially the vulnerable or marginalized.
Read more