Decision on Disposition and Penalty

OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE DISCIPLINE HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF ONTARIO REGULATION 268/10

MADE UNDER THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, RSO 1990, AND THE AMENDMENTS THERETO;

THE OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE AND CONSTABLE JAMES MONROE #2120

DECISION ON DISPOSITION AND PENALTY

Appearances:

Counsel for the Prosecution: Mr. Shawn Cléroux Non-Legal Representation for the Defence: Mr. Pat Laflamme

Before: Superintendent Mark Patterson Ottawa Police Service Designated Hearing Officer

January 8th, 2021

Before commencing with my decision and penalty regarding this matter I would like to thank Mr. Pat Laflamme, the non-legal representative for Constable Monroe and Mr. Shawn Cléroux, the Service prosecutor for their submissions as to penalty and exhibits tendered and all the work that went into the agreed statement of facts. I have taken all into consideration which has assisted me in reaching my decision.

This decision is parsed into the following parts:

PART I: OVERVIEW PART II: SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT PART III: ANALYSIS PART IV: DISPOSITION ON PENALTY

Part I: OVERVIEW

Allegations and Particulars of Misconduct include the following;

Constable Monroe did commit discreditable conduct by being found guilty of a criminal offence that is an indictable offence or an offence punishable upon summary conviction, namely, in that on October 15, 2020 he was convicted of Operating a Conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mgs of alcohol in 100 ml of blood, contrary to Section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, before the Honourable Justice J.S. Brunet, Ontario Court of Justice, thereby constituting an offence against discipline as prescribed in Section 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct, Ontario Regulation 268/10, as amended, and therefore contrary to Section 80(1) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.

Plea

A Hearing was held on Friday December 11th, 2020 in which Constable Monroe pleaded guilty to one count of discreditable conduct. As the Hearing Officer I accepted the guilty plea on clear and convincing evidence. As a result of this plea, a joint submission on penalty was submitted in which both parties agreed that the appropriate disposition would be a demotion, for Constable James Monroe, from the rank

2 of First-Class Constable to the rank of Second-Class Constable for a period of twelve (12) months in accordance with section 85(1)(C) of the Police Services Act. Further Constable James Monroe, paired with an impaired driving educational professional, will speak to the next three (3) successive classes of new recruits at Ottawa Police Service on the perils and repercussions of drinking and driving as a member of the Police Service in accordance with section 85(7)(C) of the Police Services Act.

Part II: Summary of Misconduct

The following exhibits / evidence were tendered:

1. Designation Order Superintendent Patterson 2. Designation Order Lara Malashenko 3. Designation Order Shawn Cléroux 4. Designation Order Christine Huneault 5. Notice of hearing dated May 28th , 2020 6. Notice of increase of penalty dated May 28th , 2020 7. Letter for charges to be stayed 8. Letter non-legal defence representation by Patrick Laflamme for Constable Monroe 9. Notice of 2nd hearing dated Nov 26th , 2020 10. Notice of increase of penalty dated Nov 26th ,2020 11. Agreed Statement of facts 12. Joint submission on penalty 13. Book of authorities 14. Letter to Chief Sloly from Constable James Monroe

Agreed Statement of Facts

An agreed statement of facts (Exhibit #11) was presented and read on record by the prosecutor, Mr. Cléroux, at the December 11th, 2020 hearing and as follows;

1. The subject officer, Constable James Monroe (cadre #2120) is a sworn member of the Ottawa Police Service (OPS). Constable Monroe has been a police officer with the OPS since 2009.

2. On May 4th, 2020, at approximately 1:42 p.m., a witness called 911 to report a possible impaired driver. That driver was later identified as Constable James Monroe of the OPS.

3. On May 4th, 2020, Constable James Monroe was off-duty and operating his own personal motor vehicle in the area of Old Montreal Road and Dairy Drive in the City of Ottawa.

4. Constable James Monroe was observed by witnesses driving westbound on Old Montreal Road erratically, swerving in and out of oncoming traffic, and going over the shoulder of the roadway.

5. Constable James Monroe was then observed to have turned into the Cardinal Creek New Homes Subdivision located off Old Montreal Road, hitting the right-hand shoulder and stopping briefly, then making a U-turn over the centre median and into the garden area of the subdivision. Constable James Monroe then backed up into the garden, returned to the roadway and continued westbound on Old Montreal Road.

6. Constable James Monroe was later observed turning north onto Dairy Drive, briefly stopping, and almost driving into the ditch on the east side of the roadway. A second witness called 911 to report that the vehicle had stopped at this location, where Constable James Monroe was eventually found by police.

7. During the responding officer’s roadside investigation, Constable James Monroe showed many signs of impairment, such as the odour of alcohol emanating from his breath, glossy eyes, very slow movements, and difficulty keeping his upper body and head steady.

8. When asked to remove his seatbelt, Constable James Monroe had difficulty taking it off and repeatedly tangled it up with the hand-break of his vehicle located in the centre console. 4

9. While stepping out of the vehicle at the request of police, Constable James Monroe was unsteady on his feet and had to be helped by officers to stand up. While standing up, he had to rely on his vehicle to prop up his body.

10. The responding officer formed reasonable grounds to believe that Constable James Monroe was operating a motor vehicle while his abilities were impaired by alcohol.

11. Constable James Monroe was arrested for impaired operation of a conveyance and was transported to the Ottawa Police Service Central Division cellblock, located at 474 Elgin Street in Ottawa, where he provided two suitable breath samples.

12. Constable James Monroe provided his first suitable breath sample, which registered 198 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood. Shortly thereafter, Constable James Monroe provided his second suitable breath sample, which registered 200 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood.

13. Constable James Monroe was criminally charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired contrary to section 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

14. On October 15th, 2020, before the Honourable Justice J.S. Brunet of the Ontario Court of Justice, Constable James Monroe pled guilty to, and was found guilty of, the section 320.14(1)(b) charge under the Criminal Code of Canada and received a $2600 fine as well as a one-year driving prohibition. Attached to this Agreed Statement of Facts and marked as Appendix “A” is a transcript of Justice J.S. Brunet’s decision.

15. Constable James Monroe cooperated fully throughout both the criminal matter and the Ottawa Police Service Professional Standards Section investigation.

Part III: Analysis

1. As a starting point it is important and most helpful to clearly state the objectives of police discipline, which are to: i) Correct unacceptable behaviour; ii) Deter others from similar behaviour; iii) Assure the public that the police are under control.

To cover these objectives, I will speak directly to the eight of the established 15 disposition considerations that were argued by the prosecutor, Mr. Cléroux, during his submissions, being: Public interest • Seriousness of misconduct • Recognition of the seriousness of misconduct • Potential to reform the officer • Specific and general deterrence • Damage to the reputation of the police service / effect of publicity • Employment history • Consistency of disposition

Public Interest

2. Police officers are held by the public at a higher level of trust and accountability. Unprofessional conduct by an officer, both on and off duty, damages the public trust in confidence in the individual officer as well at the police service. For this very reason the penalty in which I impose on Constable Monroe must impress upon the public that his misconduct draws upon appropriate sanctions under the Police Services Act. Constable Monroe’s conduct on May 4th, 2020 fell well below the expectation that the public holds on police officers. The Ottawa Police Service (OPS), like all others, takes intoxicated driving offences quite seriously and in doing so engages in numerous traffic safety initiatives and campaigns, like that of RIDE (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) program. When Constable Monroe an Ottawa Police Officer consumed a level of alcohol and made the decision to drive, he committed a serious criminal act putting public safety at risk and showing no regard for the law in which Constable Monroe took an oath to uphold. When Constable Monroe committed this criminal act it certainly damages the aforementioned safety programs that the Ottawa Police Services proudly partakes in.

Seriousness of the Misconduct

3. Mr. Cléroux, the assigned prosecutor, submitted that Constable Monroe’s behaviour placed himself and members of the public at risk. Constable Monroe was observed by members of the public driving erratically in and out of oncoming traffic, going over the shoulder of the roadway, and later, driving into the garden area of a subdivision. Upon being stopped by police Constable Monroe exhibited many signs of impairment, had difficulty removing his seatbelt and required assistance both to exit the vehicle and to remain standing. Constable Monroe’s actions can only be deemed to be quite serious in nature. Drinking and driving offences have become intolerant within the community given the risk to other driver’s sharing the roadway as well as pedestrians. This intolerance from the public is further compounded when the offender is that of a police officer. Another aggravating factor considered is the blood alcohol readings which Constable Monroe held, these being 198 and 200 both well over twice the legal limit as prescribed by the Criminal Code of Canada. It is this conduct from a police officer that erodes public trust and further brings discredit to the Ottawa Police Service.

Recognition of the Seriousness of the Misconduct

4. In recognizing the seriousness of his misconduct Constable Monroe cooperated fully during the criminal proceedings and provided a guilty plea at his earliest opportunity. Constable Monroe further cooperated during the PSS investigation and again provided a guilty plea for his discreditable conduct charge.

When addressing the tribunal on his hearing date Constable Monroe provided, what I deemed to be, a sincere expression for his remorse. He apologized to his friends, colleagues, family, the public, and the service as whole for his actions. Constable Monroe acknowledged that conduct in which he displayed is exactly what builds to distrust between the public and the police and that he was committed to help build this trust back.

Constable Monroe further echoed his remorse in a letter he provided to Chief Sloly (Exhibit #14), wherein he provided an apology for his actions and how it brought “shame to the organization”.

Potential to Reform or Rehabilitate the Police Officer

5. As part of the defence submission Constable Monroe spoke to the tribunal and in doing so stated, “my actions were inexcusable, this won’t happen again” “If you are talking about rehabilitation this definitely won’t happen again”. Constable. Monroe took full responsibility for his actions and pled guilty to his criminal charges, which included a fine and driving suspension.

Constable Monroe has been an Ottawa Police Officer since 2009 and prior to that was a Constable with the Ontario Provincial Police. Mr. Cléroux indicated there were no prior disciplinary issues with Constable Monroe.

Included in the joint submission Constable Monroe has agreed to speak to the next three (3) Ottawa Police Service recruit classes on the perils and repercussions on drinking and driving as a member of the police service.

There is no reason to suggest that the behaviour of Constable Monroe exhibited on May 4th, 2020, which brought him before this tribunal, will occur again.

Specific and General Deterrence

6. Mr. Cléroux indicated as part of his prosecutorial submission that the Ottawa Police Service does not condone the behavior displayed by Constable Monroe. The Service recognizes that a clear message must be sent to Constable Monroe as well as other officers within the Ottawa Police Service that driving impaired brings about serious consequences in order to deter similar behavior. The penalty to Constable Monroe must reflect that police are held to a higher standard than that of the public because of the oath they swore to uphold the laws within our communities.

Reputation of the Police Service

7. The conduct of Constable Monroe on May 4th 2020 has already been reported through the media drawing obvious public attention. On his own submission Constable Monroe stated that his actions have “caused disrepute” to the Ottawa Police Service. The decision and penalty imposed as a result of this hearing, provided as a public document, will further cause the Ottawa Police Service to be brought under a negative light. Compounding this is the fact that numerous community members observed and reported the incident on May 4th. A community in which Constable Monroe actively policed and instilled a sense of trust within.

Employment History

8. Constable Monroe was hired in 2009 by the Ottawa Police Service and, as submitted by the prosecution, has no prior disciplinary actions. Prior to this incident Constable Monroe did not have a criminal record.

Consistency of Disposition

9. Mr. Cléroux submitted that the appropriate penalty for Constable Monroe is that of a 12 month demotion from First-Class Constable to Second-Class Constable, and in addition to this, Constable Monroe, paired with an impaired driving education professional, also speak to the next three (3) successive classes of new Ottawa Police recruits on the perils and repercussions of impaired driving as a member of the Ottawa Police Service.

In the case of Schofield and TPS, provided to the tribunal by the prosecution - Book of Authorities (Exhibit #13), summarized is the general proposition regarding consistency in disciplinary proceedings. Schofield notes that - each case must be judged on the facts peculiar to it. Consistency in the disciplinary process is often the earmark of fairness. The penalty must be consistent with the facts, and consistent with similar cases that have been dealt with on earlier occasions.

To provide assistance in reaching a decision and penalty I was provided seven (7) relevant cases within the Book of Authorities (Exhibit #13). The submitted cases were all involving officers convicted of impaired driving with somewhat differing factors.

Allard and Toronto Police Service (Supt. R Breen, Dec 19, 2011) Annetts and Toronto Police Service (Supt. D Campbell, Sept 30, 2011) Ford and Toronto Police Service (Insp. R Hegedus, May 5, 2016) Walker and Hamilton Police Service (Supt. M Shea, Apr 23, 2010) Cowley and Ottawa Police Service (Supt. C Renwick, Nov 14, 2019) Bierworth and Ontario Provincial Police (Supt. G Walton, Jan 31, 2018) Pauls and Hamilton Police Service (Supt. K Bond, May 5, 2014)

In reviewing the submitted cases the most relevant and similar in facts is that of Ford and Toronto Police Service (Insp. R Hegedus, May 5, 2016) – Book of Authorities (Exhibit #13 Tab 4). In this case the penalty was that of one (1) year demotion for one (1) count of Discreditable Conduct.

All the cases provided, and reviewed, consisted of a twelve (12) month to that of an eighteen (18) month demotion in rank. Some of these cases Walker, Cowley, Pauls and Bierworth – Book of Authorities (Exhibit #13 Tabs 5, 6, 7, and 8 respectively) provided additional aggravating factors which warranted increased periods of demotion.

Part IV: Disposition on Penalty

Disposition

10. In determining my decision, I have reviewed the penalty factors and categorized them as either aggravating, mitigating or neutral toward the appropriate decision. The aggravating factors being: Public Interest, Seriousness of the Misconduct, Specific and General Deterrence, Reputation of the Service and the Effect of Publicity.

The mitigating factors being: Recognition of the Seriousness of Misconduct, Potential to Rehabilitate or Reform the Officer and Employment History

A joint submission of penalty was also provided to me. There was no evidence provided during the hearings that would cause me to reject the joint submission. I accept it as being consistent with the case law provided by the prosecution regarding impaired driving convictions by serving police officers.

I therefore agree with the joint submission concerning penalty in this matter. Misconduct has been proven on clear and convincing evidence and the purpose of the discipline process can be met by imposition of the proposed penalty.

11. Constable Monroe, you will be demoted from the rank of First-Class Constable to the rank of Second-Class Constable for a period of twelve (12) months in accordance with section 85(1)(c) of the Police Service Act. Further Constable James Monroe, paired with an impaired driving educational professional, you will speak to the next three (3) successive classes of new recruits at Ottawa Police Service on the perils and repercussions of drinking and driving as a member of the Police Service in accordance with section 85(7)(C) of the Police Services Act.

Dated at Ottawa, this 8th day of January 2021

Superintendent Mark Patterson Hearing Officer