With two Greater Sudbury Police officers facing a disciplinary hearing from the Professional Standards Bureau, and a third having recently resigned over discreditable conduct, Sudbury.com decided to find out what happens when a complaint is made against a police officer, either from the public or the Chief of Police.
GSPS officers Const. Thomas van Drunen and Const. Melisa Rancourt are facing disciplinary hearings stemming from complaints in 2021. A third officer, Const. Kyle Cartwright, resigned in the face of a discreditable conduct charge.
Rancourt is in court after her Feb. 17 for a final provincial trespassing charge relating to her arrest on Sept. 26 when she refused to provide proof of vaccination to attend her child’s hockey game at the Espanola Recreation Centre. The other two charges, trespassing and resisting arrest, were withdrawn after Rancourt completed the John Howard’s Society Direct Accountability program. Her disciplinary hearing with the Professional Standards Bureau begins March 1.
On Nov. 13, 2020, van Drunen was charged with impaired driving when he was pulled over on Municipal Road 80 by another police officer. He was off duty at the time. Van Drunen pleaded guilty to careless driving and speeding instead of being convicted of impaired driving charges. His disciplinary hearing was stayed as the charges moved through the system, and the date has yet to be set.
Cartwright recently resigned after a discreditable conduct charge for entering into a personal relationship with a person who called police for help, as well as for his treatment of a homeless man; he also faced one count of insubordination for his allegedly poor note-taking.
To better understand how complaints against the police are pursued, it is best to examine the various groups that monitor conduct, and the legislation: the Police Service Act.
While some organizations may be familiar, like the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which primarily investigates police-involved incidents of death, serious injury, or sexual assault, and the Coroner’s office, which can hold an inquest designed to focus attention on the circumstances of a death, others are less well known.
Bodies that regulate police services include the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Labour – officers are employees, after all.
Then, there are three bodies considered ‘civilian’ that oversee the police. There is the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC), an independent, quasi-judicial agency that hears appeals, conducts investigations and resolves disputes regarding the oversight and provision of policing services. The OCPC’s powers and duties come from section 22(1) of the Police Services Act.
The third civilian organization is the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).
The OIPRD’s primary role is to receive and manage public complaints about police in Ontario.
For non-civilian complaints, generated by a chief of police, which can be more serious and possibly criminal complaints, the case will be heard by the Professional Standards Bureau, who report directly to the police chief.
Section 80: The classes of misconduct
The Police Services Act sets out classes of misconduct that a police officer can engage in. Under the Act, a police officer is guilty of misconduct for several reasons, foremost that officers are required to adhere to a code of conduct (O. Reg. 268/10: GENERAL), both while on duty and off duty. Breaches of that code include: insubordination, neglect of duty, deceit and breach of confidence, corrupt practice, unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority, damage to clothing or equipment, consuming drugs or alcohol in a manner prejudicial to duty. It is a misconduct offense to breach the code of conduct.
Additionally, officers can be charged with misconduct for engaging in political activity, except as regulations permit, resigning during an emergency, possessing a trade union membership, inducing misconduct by convincing another officer to commit a code of conduct infraction or withholding services. Sub-sections 132-134 deal with the manner of handling personal property, money, and firearms, respectively.
There are also rules against the contravention of subsection 135, regulations from the Lieutenant Governor in Council regarding use of force, and other such areas.
When off duty, the following portion of the act applies: “ A police officer shall not be found guilty of misconduct if there is no connection between the conduct and either the occupational requirements for a police officer or the reputation of the police force.”
When a complaint is received by either the OIPRD or the Professional Standards Bureau, it is first screened to ensure that the complaint is valid, in that it is not made punitively or without merit. If the complaint is found valid, there is an opportunity for an early resolution, the opportunity to find an agreement between the parties outside of formal measure and prior to an investigation.
As for the officer’s duties while under investigation, suspension is outlined in the Police Services Act as an administrative suspension or full suspension, with pay; there is no option under the Act to suspend without pay.
While there are no statistics regarding the Professional Standards Bureau as the confidentiality of employees becomes a factor, a recent presentation to the Greater Sudbury Police Board detailed the number of complaints and their classification.
A total of 43 complaints were received by the OIPRD regarding the GSPS in 2021, an increase of six over the previous year. Two of the public complaints were ‘substantiated.’
Of the complaints, 21 were dismissed under section 60 of the Act, that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, in bad faith, or determined by the OIPRD director to be “not in the public interest to pursue,” and screened out.
The allegations within the complaints were largely Discreditable conduct (17), Neglect of Duty (10), Excessive Force (3) and Abuse of Authority (2).
Six complaints were withdrawn by the complainant after “analysis and discussions” with Professional Standards Investigators.
Eight complaints were investigated and determined to be unsubstantiated.
Six complaints were resolved with Early Resolution, and two complaints are currently under investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau, to be completed in 2022.
Professional Standards Bureau
When there is a complaint from a chief of police, it is investigated by the Professional Standards Bureau (PSB). Within the bureau are two investigators, with at least the rank of sergeant, and one civilian, all with a supervision of staff sergeant.
The bureau reports directly to the police chief, and the chief is responsible for discipline and the holding of disciplinary hearings.
When an investigation begins, there is notice to the officer and to the Police Association of Ontario, the provincial representative for police personnel in Ontario. Then, witnesses are interviewed and audio, video, notes, reports and any other pertinent information is obtained. Then, there is a written report of findings, completed by the Professional Standards Bureau, and copies of the report are given to the complainant.
From that point, the investigation is either deemed ‘Substantiated,’ or ‘unsubstantiated’.
At the conclusion of the Professional Standards Bureau investigation into a substantiated complaint, in addition to infractions set at a disciplinary hearing, there will be an examination of the ‘precedent’ that the case would set for future cases. Precedent refers to case law that is used as a benchmark for other cases, as per section 85 in the Act. However, tribunals are not bound by previous decisions.
Dismissal, if at all, can happen only after the hearing, and only by the hearing officer. At that point, the officer who received the complaint can appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.
The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD)
The OIPRD is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing complaints made by members of the public. The OIPRD accepts complaints about sworn police officers from municipal (like GSPS) and regional police services in Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).
Conduct complaints will be either referred back for an investigation to the police service in question, another police service for investigation or retained by the OIPRD for investigation,” said the spokesperson.
Under the Police Services Act, a complaint can either be retained by the OIPRD or referred to the police service for investigation. Conduct complaints will be either referred back for an investigation to the police service in question, another police service for investigation or retained by the OIPRD for investigation.
“The Director’s decision to retain or refer a complaint is made on a case-by-case basis guided by various considerations,” said a spokesperson from the OIPRD, who responded to written questions. (Sudbury.com requested and was denied an interview.)
“When a complaint is referred to a police service, an officer in the service’s professional standards unit, or an officer designated by the police chief where a service does not have a professional standards unit, will conduct the investigation. The OIPRD continues to manage and oversee that complaint.”
At the end of an investigation, the OIPRD or the Chief will issue an investigative report. The complainant, the respondent officer, and the OIPRD and police chief receive a copy of the report.
Where serious misconduct is substantiated following an investigation, or where less serious misconduct is substantiated, but the matter cannot be resolved by way of informal discipline or disposition without a hearing, a disciplinary hearing will be held.
Under the Police Services Act, disciplinary hearings are conducted by police services and are open to the public. The decisions are required, by legislation, to be posted on the OIPRD’s website.
The appeals process is the same as for the Professional Standards Bureau, handled by the OCPC.
Conclusion of Hearings
At the conclusion of a hearing in which an officer is found culpable, the police chief has powers based on the severity of the misconduct. The chief can dismiss the officer from the police force in the most serious infractions, but they can also direct that the police officer be dismissed in seven days unless he or she resigns before that, demote the police officer, suspend for a period without pay for a period that does not exceed 204 hours (30 days), direct the officer to forfeit pay for three to 24 hours, or to forfeit time off (not more than 20 days or 160 hours), reprimand, or direction for the officer to undergo counselling, treatment or training.
Jenny Lamothe is a reporter with Sudbury.com. She covers the diverse communities of Sudbury, especially the vulnerable or marginalized, including the Black, Indigenous, newcomer and Francophone communities, as well as 2SLGBTQ+ and issues of the downtown core.
