IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 61 OF THE POLICE ACT, 1990

Between: Constable Patrick Robin, Badge #168

Appellant

- and –

Chief Dale McFee, Chief of Police, Prince Albert Police Service,

Respondent

Hearing Officer’s Decision

I. This Proceeding On March 16, 2010, Chief Dale McFee (“McFee”) of the Prince Albert Police Service (the “service” or the “Prince Albert Police Service”) issued an Order of Dismissal pursuant to section 60 of The Police Act 1990 (the “Act”) to Constable Patrick Robin, Badge #168, in which Chief McFee concluded:

I have therefore concluded that you are unsuitable for police service, and I hereby order that you are dismissed from the Prince Albert Police Service effective immediately this 16th day of March, 2010.

Under section 61 of the Act, Robin appealed that Order of Dismissal. I was appointed hearing officer. The s. 61 hearing of Robin’s appeal commenced in Prince Albert on July 21, 2010. During the hearing, McFee sought to enter into evidence two video recordings. Robin sought to exclude the video recordings. I heard evidence and argument on this issue on September 14, 2010 and on October 13, 2010, I ruled that the video recordings are admissible in this hearing. The parties agreed I should not consider the evidence presented on the application to exclude the video recordings as part of the evidence in the main hearing. I have therefore not considered that evidence in coming to my decision. Following my ruling on admissibility of the video recordings, Robin brought an application to dismiss some or all of the grounds set out in the Order of Dismissal. The parties provided detailed briefs and I heard arguments on this application on December 6, 2010. On December 15, 2010, I dismissed the application. The hearing resumed on January 17, 2011 and concluded on January 21, 2011.

2

During the hearing, McFee called the following witnesses as part of his case: Ron Moniuk, a Prince Albert citizen. Constable Brian Glynn, a member of the PA Police Service. Kristy Wright, a court clerk with the PA Police Service. Louis Lukowski, a Melfort area citizen. Michael Parenteau, a Prince Albert citizen. Deputy Chief Troy Cooper, Deputy Chief of the PA Police Service. Staff Sergeant Tim Settee, a member of the PA Police Service. Chief Howard Georgeson, former Inspector PA Police Service, now Chief of Weyburn Police Service. Casey Reimer, a Prince Albert citizen. Sergeant Tadd Kellett, a Staff Sergeant with the PA Police Service. Sergeant Michael Scharff, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Regina. Joseph Kulyk, Regional Crown Prosecutor, Prince Albert Area. Chief Dale McFee, Chief, Prince Albert Police Service. Staff Sergeant Roy Derworiz, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Prince Albert Detachment.

Robin called the following witnesses: Ian Reiman, Prince Albert citizen, former member PA Police Service. Heidi Lebel, civilian employee, Prince Albert Police Service. Constable Patrick Robin. In addition to the witness testimony, the parties put several documents before the hearing by agreement and other documents were introduced through witnesses. I have considered all the evidence and documents including the video tapes referred to above. II. The Order of Dismissal The Order of Dismissal reads in part:

I am of the opinion that you have conducted yourself in a manner that renders you unsuitable for police service contrary to section 60(1)(b) of The Police Act, 1990.

The grounds for my opinion are as follows:

1. There is clear and convincing evidence which satisfies me on a balance of probabilities that in late December, 2009 or early January, 2010 you did, without authorization, improperly disclose confidential Prince Albert Police Service information to members of the public, contrary to s. 36(d) of The Municipal Police Discipline Regulations. You have acknowledged providing witness statements and police file material to retired member Ian Reiman. You have also acknowledged providing a confidential memorandum from Crown Prosecutor Joseph Kulyk to the witness Mike Parenteau. These disclosures were in direct violation of written policy of

3

the Prince Albert Police Service which provides that police information, in whatever form, must not be divulged in any way to unauthorized persons or agencies.

2. There is clear and convincing evidence which satisfies me on a balance of probabilities that in late December, 2009 or early January, 2010 you were willfully insubordinate by word or action, contrary to 37(b) of The Municipal Police Discipline Regulations, by arranging to have a subpoena issued to yourself to attend court on January 5, 2010 to prosecute a traffic ticket offence without informing your supervisor or obtaining approval to do so. You did so despite knowing that you were not required as a witness in the matter.

3. There is clear and convincing evidence which satisfies me on a balance of probabilities that on January 5, 2010 you were willfully insubordinate by word or action, contrary to 37(b) of The Municipal Police Discipline Regulations by willfully failing to obtain authorization to perform overtime duty regarding the prosecution of the above mentioned traffic ticket offence, and by submitting a claim for overtime pay knowing that it had not been authorized.

4. There is clear and convincing evidence which satisfies me on a balance of probabilities that you have committed the major offence of discreditable conduct pursuant to s. 36(a) in the following respects:

a. you willfully misled your immediate supervisor, Sgt. Kellett, respecting your conversation with senior Crown Prosecutor Joseph Kulyk, when Sgt. Kellett asked you whether you had talked to him regarding the above mentioned traffic ticket offence. You had, in fact, discussed the matter with Mr. Kulyk, and had been informed that the Crown would not prosecute the ticket further. You deliberately withheld that information from Sgt. Kellett, and deliberately failed to inform him of your intention to prosecute the ticket yourself;

b. you did not disclose to the civilian witnesses who attend court with respect to the above mentioned ticket that you did not have the authorization of the Prince Albert Police Service to prosecute the offence;

c. your actions in consulting with and disclosing confidential Prince Albert Police Service information to Ian Reiman led to Mr. Reiman making anonymous telephone calls to three civilians to pressure these civilians to intervene with the mayor’s office on your behalf;

d. you willfully misled the investigator from the Public Complaints Commission by initially denying that you had shared confidential Police Service information with Mr. Reiman;

e. you willfully placed yourself in a conflict of interest by personally prosecuting a traffic ticket offence against Casey Reimer, knowing that the said Casey Reimer had complained to the Prince Albert Police Service respecting your conduct;

f. you willfully disregarded the direction of Joseph Kulyk, senior Crown Prosecutor respecting the Casey Reimer matter, in direct violation of Prince Albert Police Service written policy, which provides that the Crown Prosecutor has overriding authority to determine what charges will be prosecuted once any given matter reaches court. You did so without consulting, informing, or obtaining the approval of any superior officer of the Prince Albert Police Service;

g. you have willfully made a false statement about a fellow member of the Prince Albert Police Service, Sgt. Kellett, by accusing him of taking steps to “stop” service of a subpoena on a Crown witness;

4

h. you have willfully made a false statement regarding a civilian employee of the Prince Albert Police Service, Kristy Wright, by stating that she was the person who informed you that Sgt. Kellett had taken steps to stop the subpoena to a Crown witness;

i. you have willfully made a false statement about a former fellow member of the Prince Albert Police Service, Insp. Georgeson, by accusing him of interfering in the investigation or prosecution of the traffic ticket offence against Casey Reimer;

j. you arranged for a witness to attend from out of town to testify with respect to the Casey Reimer traffic ticket offence without making any arrangement for such witness’s travel expenses to be covered, and failed to assist the witness in recovering such expenses after their evidence was given;

k. you have made a false allegation of criminal conduct against myself and other senior officers of the Prince Albert Police Service by alleging to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Saskatchewan Public Complaints Commission that we have been guilty of obstruction of justice with respect to the Casey Reimer matter. You did this despite your knowledge that the decision not to prosecute the Reimer matter was made by the Crown Prosecutor handling the file, not by myself or any of the senior officers you accused of wrongdoing.

5. Remedial action short of dismissal is not a reasonable alternative in the circumstances for the following reasons:

a. your conduct as outlined above has been brought or could bring discredit upon the Prince Albert Police Service, and has eroded or could erode public confidence in the effectiveness and fairness of the Prince Albert Police Service;

b. your conduct as outlined above demonstrates an unwillingness or inability on your part to accept and follow Prince Albert Police Service policies, the directions of your superiors, and the decisions of the Crown Prosecutor’s Office;

c. your conduct as outlined above has damaged the working relationship of the Prince Albert Police Service with the Crown Prosecutor’s Office, and has undermined or could undermine the confidence of the Crown Prosecutor’s Office in the integrity of Police Service members;

d. in particular, your conduct as outlined above has irreparably damaged your working relationship with the Crown Prosecutor’s Office, which will or could impair your effectiveness as a police officer;

e. your conduct as outlined above has also irreparably damaged your working relationship with some of your fellow members of the Prince Albert Police Service, with myself, and with senior officers of the Service;

f. your conduct as outlined above is entirely inconsistent with the standard of truthfulness, integrity and fairness required of each and every member of the Prince Albert Police Service. These are core values of the Police Service, and tolerance of conduct such as that outlined above would or could erode public confidence in the integrity of the Prince Albert Police Service and its members;

g. your past conduct has been the subject of remedial efforts, including verbal cautions, the provision of a coaching officer, close supervision, and the commencement of disciplinary charges which remain outstanding. Your conduct as outlined above has occurred despite these past efforts, and

5

demonstrates an unwillingness to conform your behaviour to the standards required of a Prince Albert Police Service member;

h. I have lost confidence in your ability to perform your duties in a fair, effective and honest manner, and have determined that the working relationship has been damaged beyond repair.

III. The Evidence A. Overview Constable Patrick Robin began work with the “PA Police Service” in October 2006. From then until the Order of Dismissal on March 16, 2010, Robin worked as a constable with the Service. The events which ultimately led to McFee’s decision to order dismissal began with a traffic investigation on June 15, 2009. On that date, the Service received a complaint that someone was engaged in reckless driving (the “Soccer Field Incident”. Robin investigated the matter. As part of the investigation, Robin interviewed several prospective complainants. Robin also spoke to Casey Reimer, the driver of the vehicle, and Reimer’s passenger, Andrew Brooks. Robin issued Reimer a Traffic Safety Act ticket for driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway (the “Reimer Ticket”). Reimer Brooks complained to the Service about Robin’s demeanor and conduct during their discussions with him. They did not ask that a formal public complaint be made or that disciplinary action be taken against Robin. They asked the Service to speak to Robin about his conduct. The Service did not take any disciplinary proceedings against Robin as a result of the Reimer/Brooks complaint. Robin’s superiors spoke to him and decided to place Robin with a coaching officer for a period of time. On July 30, 2009, Reimer appeared in court and pleaded not guilty to the ticket. The trial was scheduled for January 5, 2010. At the Service, Traffic Safety Act charges are handled by the Crown Prosecutor’s Office. In accordance with practice, Robin prepared a Trial Notification including a list of witnesses who ought to be subpoenaed and submitted it to the clerical department of the Service. Also in accordance with that practice, the Reimer file was referred to the Crown Prosecutor’s Office for handling. In early December, 2009, Crown Prosecutor Joseph Kulyk, after reviewing the Reimer file, send a Memorandum dated December 3, 2009 to Robin. That memorandum reads:

I have reviewed the above file and I do not believe that there is a reasonable chance of a conviction in this case. There is obviously a difference of opinion and conflicting evidence in this case. What is “excessive speed” to one person may not be that to another person. The accused was obviously upset with the damage to his vehicle whereas the people there instead of addressing this issue stopped him from leaving, took issue with the manner in which he drove and then ordered him to take off. I think that the accused may well generate some sympathy with the court in the circumstances.

6

Robin disagreed with Kulyk’s assessment of the case. Robin went to Kulyk’s office to discuss the matter. Kulyk did not change his position and confirmed that he was not going to go ahead with the prosecution. Robin was not satisfied with Kulyk’s decision. He contacted civilian witnesses who had complained about Reimer’s driving, told them of the Crown’s decision and urged them to contact the Crown to discuss the matter. Robin provided a copy of Kulyk’s memorandum to at least one of the witnesses. Kulyk did not change his mind. Robin decided to prosecute the Reimer Ticket on his own. Robin did not obtain permission from Kulyk to prosecute the ticket or from anyone in authority at the PA Police Service. He did not inform his sergeant or anyone else at the PA Police Service of his intention to prosecute the ticket. The trial of the Reimer Ticket was set for January 5, 2010. Robin was not scheduled to work that day. Robin arranged with the clerical staff at the PA Police Service to add his name to the witness list for the trial and to have a subpoena issued requiring his attendance in court on January 5, 2010. The staff prepared the subpoena. Robin contacted the civilian witnesses to confirm that they would be attending the trial. Robin appeared in court on January 5, 2010, to prosecute the ticket. He appeared on the record on behalf of the Crown and he called witnesses on behalf of the Crown. After the Crown’s evidence, the case was adjourned to January 18, 2010 at the request of the defendant, Reimer. On January 7, 2010, Robin arranged for a fellow officer to serve him with the subpoena for the January 5, 2010 court date and to complete an affidavit of service. Robin did not testify as a Crown witness at the January 5, 2010 trial. He appeared only as prosecutor. Robin submitted an overtime claim for the time he spent in court on the Reimer matter. The overtime had not been approved or verified by his NCO, Sergeant Kellett, or the Crown Prosecutor’s Office. When Kellett became aware of the overtime claim, he discovered Robin had prosecuted the case. Upon becoming aware of Robin’s conduct, Chief McFee decided an investigation was in order. McFee placed Robin on administrative leave on January 14, 2010 pending the outcome of the investigation. McFee directed that the Public Complaints Commission (the “PCC”) be notified of the investigation. The PCC reviewed the matter and deemed the matter to be a public complaint. The PCC took over the investigation. The PA Police Service turned the Reimer Ticket prosecution back to Joe Kulyk in the Crown Prosecutor’s Office. Kulyk appeared in Court on January 14, 2010 and withdrew the charge. Later in January 2010, one of the civilian witnesses in the Reimer matter contacted the PA Police Service. The witness reported receiving an anonymous phone call. The caller told him Robin had been suspended over the Reimer

7

Ticket. The caller told the witness he should call the Police Chief or the mayor to help out Constable Robin. The caller refused to identify himself. Subsequent investigation revealed that two other witnesses or potential witnesses had received similar anonymous calls. One of the calls was placed to the witness’s unlisted cell phone number. At least one of those witnesses found the call disturbing enough to contact the police. The witness used the Star 57 feature on his phone and a trace revealed the call came from Ian Reiman, a friend of Robin’s and a former member of the PA Police Service. The anonymous caller told at least one of the witnesses that the Reimer charge had been pulled by the Chief of Police. On January 19, 2010, Robin contacted the Prince Albert RCMP detachment and asked them to start an obstruction of justice investigation of Chief McFee and other senior members of the PA Police Service. Robin alleged they had interfered with the prosecution of Reimer and had inappropriately arranged for the withdrawal of the ticket. The RCMP declined to investigate and referred the matter to the PCC. During the PCC investigation, the investigator, David Wade, interviewed Robin on two occasions, February 18 and February 28, 2010. During those interviews, Robin made similar allegations of obstruction of justice against McFee and others, including an allegation against former Inspector Howard Georgeson. During those interviews, Robin also alleged that Sergeant Tadd Kellett had arranged to have a subpoena for Louis Lukowski, one of the witnesses in the Reimer matter, stopped to prevent Lukowski from being subpoenaed to court on January 5, 2010. Robin told the investigator that one of the clerical staff members of the PA Police Service had told him this. During the first interview with Wade, Robin denied sharing police file information with Ian Reiman. Later, in the second interview, Robin admitted he shared information with Reiman and that Reiman had read pretty much everything in the police file on the Reimer matter. McFee received the PCC investigator’s report on about March 11 or 12, 2010 and issued the Order of Dismissal on March 16, 2010. B. The Prince Albert Police Service Deputy Chief Troy Cooper testified that the PA Police Service has a command structure with the chief of police responsible for the overall operation of the police service. The rank structure then involves a deputy chief, inspectors, staff sergeants, sergeants and constables. There are different groupings or rankings of constables. Cooper said there were about 16 members on the PA Police Service who had come to the service from another police force. Constable Robin was one of those. Robin came with previous experience with the RCMP. At the time of the incidents in question, approximately 70 of 87 officers with the PA Police Service had more seniority with the Service than Robin had.

8

In so far as policy is concerned, Cooper testified that the PA Police Service has an electronic Policy Manual that is available on the desktop of each computer within the Service. It has a searchable database that is available to every member of the Service. When a new member is hired at the Service, the member is given training in the electronic reporting systems. All reports are written electronically. During that training, the Policy Manual is brought to the officer’s attention and the officer receives instructions on how to access the manual. Officers work with a training officer for a period of time until they feel competent. The training officer also points out policy and how to access policy. The PA Police Service Policy Manual has a section Chapter G, Charging and Enforcement which reads:

1. General

a. The Prince Albert Police Service supports the philosophy of uniformity in enforcement of the law. Laws will be enforced consistently, with fairness and good judgment, and without fear or favor. All persons are subject to the law, regardless of their position in life, and the law should never be used as a means of spitefully settling issues. [emphasis added]

b. The laying of charges in cases is, in the first instance, the responsibility of Members of this Service. This is subject to the overriding discretion of the Crown Prosecutor to decide which charges to prosecute once any given matter reaches the court. The number and substance of charges should be such as to cover the facts of an investigation in an adequate, sufficient and appropriate fashion. [emphasis added]

c. This Service values “quality” rather than “quantity” in all enforcement matters and therefore, discretion must be exercised in every case. Written or verbal warnings may be substituted for arrests or tickets when circumstances warrant, especially in the case of inadvertent violations. Prosecution of warranted charges only leads to a positive view of police efforts and enhances the support of the community and the courts.

d. Enforcement of laws by the police shall only be such that is directed by law. Laws, which protect life and property and promote the safety and tranquility of the community, include, among others, all criminal and traffic laws. Regulations relating to matters other than the protection of life and property, such as those dealing with trade and commerce, etc., and which law does not direct the police to enforce, should ordinarily not be enforced. Such enforcement activity is not the responsibility of the police.

2. Prosecutor Consultation

a. On occasion, there may be sufficient doubt as to the laying of a proper charge. If there is ample time before a suspect has to be charged or an accused has to appear in court, a Crown Prosecutor should be consulted. This shall be done by completing a text document on the applicable GO with the Text Type of “IN” Investigator’s notes and forwarding it, along with the file, to the Prosecutor’s Office.

b. Members must be sure to articulate their specific area of concern for the Prosecutor’s benefit.

3. Multiple Charges

a. Whenever possible, multiple charges should be avoided. When more than one charge may be laid against a person as a result of a single incident,

9

consideration should be given to laying only those charges which are appropriate under the circumstances and for which direct evidence exists. Common examples are cases of theft and possession investigations and Criminal Code Driving offences.

I. Theft and Possession Investigations

If the evidence is direct and sufficient to establish the charge of theft, an additional charge of possession will not automatically be laid. Similarly, theft (or other substantive charges) should not automatically be added to possession of stolen property charges.

II. Criminal Code Driving Offences

When, as a result of a criminal code driving offence investigation, moving offences under another Statute, Provincial Legislation or a Municipal Bylaw are observed and determined to form part of the driving pattern, it is inappropriate to lay such charges when the evidence in relation thereto will be disclosed at the hearing of the criminal charge. [emphasis added]

b. For example, when a person is charged with an impaired driving offence, violations such as disobey a red light or liquor in motor vehicle may be observed and are part of the evidence to substantiate the charge of impaired driving. In these circumstances, charges under another authority need not be initiated. This would not include such violations as driving while disqualified or unregistered motor vehicle, which does not form part of the impaired driving evidence. [emphasis added]

c. The Supervisor/Reader ensures there is sufficient evidence to support all initiated charges and the charged conform to this policy.

At the PA Police Service, when an officer lays a charge, before it is approved to proceed to court, it is supplied to a supervisor. The supervisor provides the charge to the Crown and the Crown decides what to do with it. Sometimes the Crown decides not to proceed. Sometimes the Crown asks for further information before deciding on what to do with a charge. This same practice applies to criminal prosecutions and traffic ticket prosecutions. Cooper testified that in his 23 years with the PA Police Service, he was not aware of any situation, other than the Reimer case, where a PA Police Service officer prosecuted a charge that the Crown did not believe should proceed. Chapter G of the Policy Manual also has a section on Control of Information. Cooper points to parts 1a which reads:

1. Security of Information

a. Police information, in whatever form (oral, written or electronic) must not be divulged in any way to unauthorized persons or agencies.

Part 1f reads: The unauthorized release of information constitutes, at a minimum, Discreditable Conduct Of a Police Officer as set out in The Municipal Police Discipline Regulations, 1991 as defined in Section 36, the Criminal offence of Breach of Trust by a Public Officer contrary to Section 122 of The Criminal Code of Canada, and a breach of the conditions of employment of all PAPS employees.

10

Under Ownership of Records, the following appears: 2. Ownership of Records

a. All records produced or obtained by a PAPS member during the course of their duties or employ are the property of the Prince Albert Police Service. “Records” includes a record of information in any form, and includes but is no limited to reports, notes, correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, manuals, maps, photographs, films, microfilms, sound recordings, video recordings, computer cards, tapes and disks, any other or all other information or image-bearing material regardless of physical form or characteristics that are made, received or preserved by any person employed by the Prince Albert Police Service. [emphasis added]

Cooper testified that sharing of information is a sensitive issue in policing because it strikes at the core of public confidence. Officers are required to sign an Oath of Secrecy. On October 23, 2006, Patrick Robin swore the following Oath of Secrecy with the PA Police Service before Deputy Chief Cooper:

I, Patrick Adolph ROBIN, being an employee with the Prince Albert Police Service, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY SWEAR that I will not disclose to anyone other than my supervisors, courts of competent jurisdiction or police members where necessary to properly carry out police duties, any facts, information, communications or knowledge coming to my attention as a member which facts, information communications or knowledge may be harmful, detrimental or embarrassing to any member of the public or which may tend to discredit the reputation of any member of the public.

Police officers in Saskatchewan also swear an oath under The Police Act. Patrick Robin swore his oath before a Judge of the Provincial Court on October 23, 2006. The oath reads:

I, Patrick Adolph Robin, do swear upon my appointment as a Peace Officer with the Prince Albert Police Service that I will, without favour or affection, malice or ill-will, to the best of my ability and knowledge, well and truly serve Her Majesty the Queen, uphold the principles in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, preserve the peace, prevent crime and other offences, enforce the law and otherwise discharge the duties of my office faithfully and according to law. So help me God.

Cooper also made the point that officers are required to sign an Acknowledgement of Restrictions Respecting the Handling of CPIC Materiel, Records and Information. The PA Police Service also has an Automated Systems Security Policy. Cooper testified that when a new officer starts with the PA Police Service, policies are brought to the officer’s attention and the ethics requirements are specifically underscored with the Oath of Secrecy and the Oath of Office before the judge. Cooper testified that the PA Police Service does not have a specific policy addressing overtime. The Collective Agreement addresses what an officer is paid for overtime. Cooper said an officer has to be asked to work overtime, but there may be occasions where “it might not be a person that asks you”, for example where an officer receives a subpoena or a notice of a hearing.

11

The PA Police Service uses an Overtime Report which an officer must submit if he claims overtime. Cooper said it is important for the Service to know who worked overtime and what the overtime was for. Because the pay rates differ depending on circumstances, it is important to know whether it was regular overtime or court overtime. The form has a section “Detailed By” next to which the officer must record who ordered the overtime. This section is important so the Service can follow up with whoever authorized the overtime to ensure needless overtime is not being worked. There is another section “Verified By NCO i/c” where someone is expected to verify that the overtime was actually worked. This will be the NCO or, in the case of court time, the Crown prosecutor who verifies that the officer attended court. Cooper said that just because a subpoena was issued doesn’t mean an officer will end up having to testify. This section is important for quality assurance. It also helps to encourage the Crown prosecutors to schedule court dates when the officer will be at work so the Service can avoid needless overtime. Cooper said that if a member had a subpoena issued to himself, and attended in court to prosecute the charge himself, the Service would not pay overtime because this conduct is not acceptable. Cooper testified that if a junior officer such as Constable Robin disagreed with the decision of a Crown prosecutor, the officer should address the issue to his supervisor and take advice from his supervisor on how to deal with the situation. Cooper testified that at the beginning of Robin’s career with the PA Police Service, Robin was found to be mature and responsible. Robin has a good work ethic as far as the amount of work he does. His performance reviews show good performance. Chief McFee testified that the PA Police Service considers letters and memoranda from the Crown prosecutor to be confidential. It would not be appropriate to share a Crown communication with a witness. McFee testified that witnesses who are required to attend court are able to seek to recoup some of their expenses from the province. These requests are handled through the prosecutor’s office. McFee testified that the PA Police Service Policy Manual is accessible on all computers in the Service. New officers are given training on the electronic policy including how to use a search mechanism to find specific information. As well, officers know that if they have any questions about policy they can always ask their NCO. McFee testified that even when an officer is subpoenaed for court, approval of the overtime by the NCO is still required. This is because the NCO will ensure that the officer’s attendance at court is necessary for the case and may contact the Crown to talk about that. Ultimately, it is the prosecutor’s decision whether an officer is a necessary witness.

12

C. Constable Patrick Robin Patrick Robin is 37 years old. He testified that from a young age he wanted to be a police officer. Out of high school, he attended college and university. He has a diploma in Criminology from Mount Royal College in Calgary and a Bachelor’s Degree in Human Justice from the University of Regina. While in the Human Justice program, Robin took a job as a corrections officer with the Saskatchewan Penitentiary. He worked and took the courses at the same time. Once he received his degree, Robin secured a position as Acting Parole Officer. He spent a year and a half to two years in parole. Robin was accepted into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 1999. He attended the training academy in Regina for about five and one-half months. Robin successfully completed his training and was assigned to the Ridge Meadows RCMP detachment in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. Robin spent about four years in General Duty which was essentially a patrol position. While in patrol, Robin did a variety of things. He wrote traffic tickets and prepared material for search warrants. He was involved in drug seizures. To obtain search warrants, Robin had to present reasonable grounds for belief in front of a justice of the peace. Robin saw himself as a self-generating officer. He created a lot of work. Some people appreciated his efforts. Robin testified that with the RCMP, in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, officers prosecute their own traffic tickets issued under provincial legislation and regulations. Robin estimated that in his four years in patrol, he prosecuted more than 25 of his tickets. The only time the Crown prosecutor got involved was when the disputant had a lawyer. After about four years in General Duty, Robin was transferred to the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia which is a provincially funded organization to fight organized crime. This was a plain clothes position. Robin decided to move back to Saskatchewan as a lifestyle choice for his family. His brother told him there were openings in the Prince Albert Police Service. In the fall of 2006 Robin applied and was granted an interview with Acting Inspector Al Fraser, Inspector Howard Georgeson and a union representative, Sergeant Lawrie George. He was hired and started work with the PA Police Service in late October 2006. Robin began his work with the PA Police Service as a constable in patrol. Robin felt he received good performance reviews. When Robin arrived at the PA Police Service, he received two days of training. This training included a tour of the office, meeting people, getting uniforms, being sworn in at the Provincial Court House and being certified with a pistol. He met with a civilian employee who went through the paperwork and the database or data entry system. This person showed Robin where to find things such as policy. Robin then spent a week or two riding with another officer. Robin testified that no one reviewed the Policy Manual with him. In his performance assessments from 2006, 2007 and 2008, Robin made a point to list

13

things to work on and one of those was policy. In answer to what steps he had taken towards learning the policies of the PA Police Service, Robin said:

Not much, but not to say that I never glanced through it ‘cause maybe I have but not all that much.

Robin said he had identified policy as something he needed to work on and he should have worked on it a little more. He opened the Policy Manual from time to time on the computer but did not go through it thoroughly at any time. D. RCMP Practice Sergeant Michael Scharff is a 30 year veteran of the RCMP, assigned to the Professional Standards Unit, Northwest Region, Regina, Saskatchewan. The unit performs investigations that relate to the conduct of members of the RCMP. Scharff testified that the RCMP does not have a uniform policy across Canada in relation to the prosecution of traffic offences. Each province or municipality has its own policy. Some places have a municipal peace officer who looks after the prosecutions. Others have a “court member” of the RCMP detachment who is assigned to do prosecutions. In Saskatchewan, difficult cases are sent to the Crown prosecutors, but some cases are handled by members. In British Columbia, the whole traffic prosecution system is different. Scharff testified that, no matter what the practice, once a case has been turned over to the Crown prosecutor, the investigator’s responsibility is to attend court if subpoenaed and to make sure the witnesses are there. The Crown prosecutor has the control of the case. Scharff testified that if an officer who wrote a ticket disagreed with the decision of a prosecutor in a particular case, the officer would be expected to go to his immediate supervisor. The issue would make its way up the chain of command and if contact with the prosecutor was warranted, it would be made through the criminal operations liaison. Scharff testified that if a constable in the RCMP undertook to prosecute a case where the Crown had decided not to proceed, that conduct would likely result in a code of conduct investigation. Scharff has worked in 12 different RCMP detachments in Saskatchewan and has never encountered a situation where a constable has gone ahead to prosecute a case when the Crown had decided not to. Scharff testified that he had some experience in British Columbia. There, depending on the area, officers do prosecute some traffic tickets and some are referred to the Crown prosecutor. If referred to the Crown prosecutor, Crown counsel makes the decision on whether a case goes ahead. E. The Chronology of Events I will now chronologically summarize the evidence about the key events.

14

The Soccer Field Incident – June 15, 2009 Patrick Robin testified that on June 15, 2009 when he was on duty, a call came in from a Louis Lukowski reporting erratic driving near the St. Mary’s soccer field. The Dispatch ticket shows the call from Lukowski came in at 7:27 p.m.. The caller provided a license plate number and left a phone number. Robin did not attend the scene because he was dealing with something else at the time. When Robin returned the call to the contact number, he spoke to Mike Parenteau. Robin told Parenteau that if he felt it was warranted, Parenteau should come to the office after the soccer game and bring whoever had witnessed the incident. Robin said he would take their statements. Robin testified that about 23 minutes later, the Police Service received a call from a Casey Reimer with the same license plate as had been provided by the earlier caller. Reimer reported that his passenger headlight was smashed by a soccer ball. Robin told Reimer he had received a complaint about Reimer’s driving and said he would be contacting Reimer after he met with the witnesses. Robin says Reimer told him to “fuck off”. Mike Parenteau and Ron Moniuk arrived from the soccer field along with some family members and soccer players. Robin took statements from Parenteau and Moniuk and had them write out their statements. Robin says he then reviewed the statements and formulated his reasonable and probable grounds that Reimer had committed a violation. Robin believed the violation that best suited the situation was “drive without reasonable consideration”. Robin then called Reimer and asked him to come to the police station. When Reimer arrived he was accompanied by Andrew Brooks. Robin let them into the police station and then gave Reimer the violation ticket under The Traffic Safety Act. Robin didn’t feel the need to take a statement from Reimer because Robin had already formulated his reasonable and probable grounds for the ticket. He felt he had been thorough in his investigation and decided he didn’t need statements from Reimer and Brooks. Robin felt Reimer was no different than anyone else. Robin felt Reimer was trying to work his way out of a ticket. Robin told Reimer he had made his decision. Robin says he was not rude to Reimer nor was Reimer or his friend rude to Robin. Robin says he then went back outside with Reimer and Brooks to look at the damage to Reimer’s truck. Robin says the headlight was not smashed. Reimer just wiggled it from side to side. Robin also noted that there were a lot of nicks and dints and scratches on the truck that indicated to him Reimer was doing a lot of off-roading. Robin says Reimer kept trying to talk his way out of the ticket. Reimer said he wanted to provide a statement. Robin told him he wasn’t obligated to provide a statement. Reimer repeated that he wanted to provide a statement. Robin went back upstairs, wrote the file number on a couple of statement papers and gave them to Reimer and Brooks. He told them they could drop off the statements when they were done or keep them for themselves.

15

Michael Parenteau said he was a witness to Reimer’s driving on June 15, 2009. Parenteau reported the incident to the PA Police Service. Later that evening, Constable Patrick Robin took Parenteau’s statement. Ronald Moniuk said he was a witness to Reimer’s driving on June 15, 2009. At Constable Robin’s request, Moniuk went to the police station and gave a statement to the PA Police Service. Moniuk felt Robin was professional in his demeanor. Louis Lukowski said he was a witness to Reimer’s driving on June 15, 2009. He remembers giving a statement to the police about the incident but not who he gave it to. Lukowski remembers that Patrick Robin called him about being a witness for the Reimer trial, but he did not recall when he received that call. During that call, Robin told Lukowski the matter was going to court and asked if Lukowski could be there. Robin testified that Lukowski mailed his statement to the PA Police Service. They receive it on July 20, 2009. Robin had talked to Lukowski on the telephone before this and asked him if he would provide a statement. Casey Reimer testified that on June 15, 2009, after an incident at a soccer field, he called the Prince Albert Police Station to report damage to his truck. He was asked to attend the PA Police Station to discuss a driving complaint against him. When he and his friend, Andrew Brooks, arrived at the station, they met with Constable Patrick Robin. Reimer says Robin issued Reimer a ticket without letting him have an opportunity to give his side of the story. Robin did not interview either of Reimer or Brooks. Reimer denies telling Robin to “fuck off” at any point during any conversation. Reimer says Brooks asked to give a statement. Robin did not take their statements. He gave them statement papers which they filled out and brought to the police station the next day. June 16, 2009 Staff Sergeant Tim Settee testified that on June 16, 2009, he was staff sergeant in charge of “C Platoon” which is a patrol section. Two young men, Casey Reimer and Andrew Brooks, came to the police station and said they wanted to file a complaint. They brought statements with them about how Constable Robin treated them. Settee took the men into his office. They said they had spoken with Constable Patrick Robin the day before and they were not happy with the service they had received. They wanted to talk to senior police about what had happened. Settee explained the different complaint processes available at the PA Police Service. Reimer’s basic concern was that Robin be spoken to about his behaviour. Settee initiated an internal process called a “Public Concern”. Settee forwarded the statements from the two men to Inspector Stienwand, who was in charge of public complaints within the PA Police Service. Settee had no further involvement in this matter.

16

Casey Reimer testified that he brought his statement about the traffic ticket incident to the police station on June 16, 2009, and picked up a witness statement form on which he wrote a second statement, this one in relation to Robin’s conduct on June 15, 2009. Reimer did not like how Robin treated him and talked to him. He felt Robin treated him like a “full-out criminal”. Every time Reimer tried to speak, Robin cut him off. Robin told Reimer to shut up a couple of times. Reimer felt his headlight had been damaged by a soccer ball. When he tried to show Robin, Robin said there is no way a soccer ball could push a headlight in. When Reimer delivered his complaint statement against Robin, he told the officer all he wanted was for someone to speak to Robin about his conduct. June 16, 2009 Deputy Chief Cooper testified that on June 16 or 17, 2009, two members of the public, Casey Reimer and Andrew Brooks, came into the police station to complain about Constable Patrick Robin. They provided written statements in which they described some behaviors of Robin that they didn’t think were appropriate. They asked that Robin be spoken to. They left their statements with one of the managers who passed them on to Deputy Chief Cooper. Robin was on a day off, so Cooper had some time to consider what to do in light of the statements. He felt “given the history I had with Pat” that it would be best for Robin to be assigned to work with another officer. Cooper decided that Robin should work with another officer because he had found that when Robin had a mentor or coaching officer or training officer, Robin tended to be more successful in avoiding difficulties with public complaints. Cooper asked the Inspector in charge of patrol, Howard Georgeson, to inform Robin’s supervisor that when Robin got back to work on the weekend Robin was to work with another officer. Cooper intended to speak with Robin the following Monday to discuss the complaint and advise Robin that he would be required to work with a coaching officer or another officer. Robin ended up off work on sick leave and didn’t return to work until July 15, 2009. Howard Georgeson, who was one of two Inspectors with the PA Police Service at the time in question, testified that in mid-June 2009, Deputy Chief Cooper came to his office with two statements that would classify as a public concern regarding Constable Patrick Robin. Cooper directed Georgeson to send an e-mail to Robin’s sergeant, Staff Sergeant Schluff, asking him to put Patrick Robin with a coaching officer. June 21, 2009 Robin says he returned to work on June 21, 2009 after a few days off for a fishing trip. Robin’s Sergeant, Berry Wauters approached him in the Report Room and showed Robin an e-mail. When Wauters showed Robin the e-mail, Wauters said, “Georgie probably knows him.” The “Georgie” referred to would have been Inspector Howard Georgeson.

17

Wauters left the Report Room. Robin followed him and asked for a copy of the e-mail. Wauters provided a copy. The e-mail is dated June 18, 2009 (the “Georgeson E-mail”). It is from Howard Georgeson to Dave Schluff and Berry Wauters. It reads:

We brought Patrick Robin into the office and went through the public complaints that are before him on Monday June 15th. He went to work that night and we have received a public concern about his attitude from two male subjects. This is somewhat alarming as the concerns are consistent with his past ongoing public complaints. In any event we are going to proceed with the following action: The names of the two subjects he dealt with are Casey Reimer and Andrew Brooks.

Place Cst Patrick Robin with another member starting Sunday June 19th and have that member monitor/mentor him as you have done in the past.

We will talk to Cst Robin on Monday again. [emphasis in original] Robin and another constable then went for a ride in a police cruiser. Robin was very upset. Robin was concerned. Before the end of the day, he went to Sergeant Wauters and told him he was booking off sick, that he was not feeling well. Wauters allowed Robin to leave. June 22, 2009 Robin went to see his doctor. He asked to go on stress leave for three weeks. Robin was upset because he felt the Georgeson E-mail was unfair. No one had come to Robin with a concern. This worried Robin because if there is a problem, he felt he should be told about it. With everything else that had been happening in previous months in relation to other disciplinary matters, Robin felt he needed some time away. July 15, 2009 When Robin returned to work on July 15, 2009, Deputy Chief Cooper met with Robin along with Sergeant Dave Schluff, Robin’s supervisor at the time. Inspector Howard Georgeson and the Union President Jason Stonechild were also present. Cooper testified that during the meeting, Robin was defensive. Robin asked for a copy of the complaint against him. Cooper gave Robin copies of the Reimer and Brooks statements. Robin said he was just doing his job, that if you work hard, you are bound to get complaints. Cooper tried to direct Robin to the fact that his communications with these persons and his tactics had caused them to make a complaint. Robin wanted to focus on the investigation of the Soccer Field Incident. He asked Cooper if he thought it was a good ticket. Robin said it was the right thing to do. Cooper said he didn’t even look at the ticket. He tried to explain to Robin that the ticket was not the point. It wasn’t what Robin did. It was how he did it. Cooper’s concern was Robin’s behaviour and communications skills. Cooper didn’t feel that Robin got his message. Robin was allowed to review the statements and he was placed with a coaching officer. No disciplinary measures were taken against Robin. Cooper decided, as a preventative measure, to provide a coaching officer for Robin.

18

Cooper testified that he assigned Robin back to his regular shift and told the sergeant that Robin was to work with another officer. Howard Georgeson recalls attending a meeting on July 15, 2009. He recalls those in attendance to be Deputy Chief Cooper, Staff Sergeant Schluff, Constable Robin and Sergeant Stonechild. Georgeson did not speak in the meeting. He was there to take notes. Cooper explained to Robin that there were a couple of new concerns that had come forward. Cooper explained this was not formal discipline. The complainants wanted Robin spoken to about his rudeness and his attitude. Georgeson testified that Cooper gave the complainants’ statements to Robin. Cooper emphasized that he was not concerned about the traffic ticket investigation. Cooper said his concern was that there were two more citizen complaints that were consistent with past allegations. Robin said he felt being placed with a coaching officer was discipline and he didn’t agree with that decision. Cooper told Robin that when he worked with a coaching officer in the past, Robin had been very successful. Georgeson testified that he did not recognize the name Casey Reimer and that he does not know Casey Reimer. Patrick Robin testified that when he returned after his sick leave, he was asked to attend a meeting with Deputy Chief Cooper, Sergeant Dave Schluff, Inspector Howard Georgeson, and the Union President Jason Stonechild. Cooper did the talking at the meeting. At the meeting Robin expressed his opinion that doing his job was bound to make people upset with him and that he defended his decision to charge Reimer, saying that he had sufficient grounds for the charge before Reimer attended the office. Robin agrees that Cooper told him he was not interested in the traffic ticket investigation, that he was concerned about the two citizens complaining about Robin’s conduct. Robin recalls being told that the meeting was not disciplinary. Robin says he was told he would be put with a coaching officer, but that never happened. Settee prepared a memo about the complaint:

Casey Reimer and his friend Andrew Brooks attended PAPS on June 16/09 and provided statements indicating Cst. Robin was rude to both of them the night before on June 15/09. Both parties indicated they wanted Cst. Robin spoken to about his behaviour.

Cst. Robin was on sick leave until July 15th. At that time he was provided with copies of their statements and informed of the nature of the complaint. He was placed with a coaching officer as a prevention initiative as this had shown success in the past. File concluded.

July 2009 Ian Reiman is a former member of the PA Police Service who retired in 2005. He was a sergeant at the time of his retirement. Reiman met Patrick Robin in around 2007 when Reiman was working for a local member of parliament and Robin came to the office with a matter on which he asked for assistance.

19

Reiman testified that sometime in around July of 2009, Robin called him and told him that he had generated some internal complaints and that he had a lawyer. Reiman asked Robin why he would need a lawyer, that Robin should just plead guilty and get them over with. Robin said, “What happens if I’m not guilty?” Reiman decided to get involved when Robin told him that his staff sergeant had called him in and said, “I don’t know how much longer you’re going to be employed here.” The complaints against Robin were going to a hearing. Reiman said Robin wasn’t satisfied with his lawyer, and Reiman told Robin he would help. He reviewed the disclosure package Robin received about the matter and gave Robin his conclusion. At one point Robin received an offer to resolve matters. Reiman told Robin that if he was willing to accept his discipline, he should go for the settlement. If Robin felt he wasn’t guilty of the incidents, he should go to the hearing. I note here parenthetically that the incidents Reiman referred to in this part of his testimony are not before me in this hearing. Reiman testified that Robin also told him he felt he was being disciplined for issuing a ticket to Casey Reimer. Reiman says he told Robin he was aware of political interference from upper management. He told Robin about a situation where McFee (when he was an inspector) tried to get Reiman to pull a traffic ticket for a city employee. He also told Robin about a situation in 2004 or 2005 when two officers arrested the mayor for drunk driving and upper management thwarted the investigation. Reiman also speculated that Reimer might have been a police informant and that someone might be accommodating Reimer in exchange for information in the future. On and after July 30, 2009 Robin testified that on July 30, 2009, he was “tasked” to create a list of witnesses for the Reimer matter. This happens when someone contests a ticket. Robin is not sure of the actual date he completed the Trial Notification form, but Robin included Lukowski, Parenteau and Moniuk on the witness list and passed the Trial Notification form on to his NCO. At a later date when the issued subpoenas came back to Robin for the January 5, 2010 trial date, he personally served Parenteau. He asked the court clerks to arrange for the RCMP to serve Moniuk and Lukowski because they both lived out of town. Robin testified that it was not unusual for him to ask for a subpoena for himself if he was going to be needed as a witness in a case. He said he did not include himself on the witness list initially:

…because I included all the primary witnesses, and I knew that I could subpoena myself at any time. I could add or subtract. I didn’t add Shawna Lukowksi on the list ‘cause I didn’t think it was necessary either, but I believed I was a necessary witness on the grounds that I served Casey Reimer a true copy of the summary offence ticket – he didn’t provide any identification – and I could also provide evidence on his claim of damage to his motor vehicle, so those were the major grounds that I felt that –that – that I was a required witness.

20

In cross-examination, Robin acknowledged that he would not have been needed as a witness to prove service of the ticket because the copy of the ticket filed with the court already included a certification that the ticket was issued to the person charged. Robin also acknowledged that he couldn’t testify to Reimer being the driver of the vehicle because he didn’t witness the actual incident. August 11, 2009 Deputy Chief Cooper testified that when a person pleads “not guilty” to a charge, the officer responsible is advised. The officer then prepares a witness list for court preparation. The officer submits the list to the supervisor who reviews it and if there are no issues, the supervisor sends the Trial Notification to the civilian staff to prepare the subpoenas. The staff person sends the subpoenas to a justice of the peace for signing. The subpoenas then go back to the supervisor who makes sure they are given to the officer for service at the appropriate time before the court date. The civilian staff person also sends a copy of the witness list to the Crown Prosecutor’s office so the Crown will know who is on the list to be subpoenaed. This is important because the Crown may decide they need other witnesses or that they don’t need a witness who is on the list. It is not unusual for the Crown to add a witness, including an officer. Normally the investigating member is responsible for service of the subpoenas. Kristy Wright, who is a court clerk at the PA Police Service, testified that on August 11, 2009, the NCO on duty at the time gave her a Trial Notification form for the Casey Reimer prosecution. The trial was set for January 5, 2010, and the form listed three witnesses: Louis Lukowski, Michael Parenteau and Ronald Moniuk. Wright dated the form August 11, 2009 and signed it. She prepared subpoenas for the three witnesses and handed them to the JP to issue. Wright had nothing further to do with the three subpoenas. September 2009 Deputy Chief Cooper testified that during the weeks after July 15, 2009, Robin’s sergeant had difficulty finding officers willing to work with Robin. As a result, Cooper transferred Robin to traffic division. Robin testified that in September, Deputy Chief Cooper called him at home and told him he was getting moved to traffic division. Robin accepted this, but he was very concerned because he had supposedly been put on a field coaching program for issuing a ticket at the front counter and now this was happening. December 3, 2009 Joseph Kulyk, who has been in charge of the prosecutor’s office in Prince Albert since the 1970s, testified that when cases are sent to his office, he assigns the prosecutor to the case. He assigned the Reimer case to himself because he was already going to be in the same courtroom the day of that trial. When Kulyk reviewed the file and read the statements on the file, he concluded there was not a reasonable likelihood of conviction on the evidence.

21

Kulyk wrote a letter to Constable Robin. That letter reads: I have reviewed the above file and I do not believe that there is a reasonable chance of a conviction in this case. There is obviously a difference of opinion and conflicting evidence in this case. What is “excessive speed” to one person may not be that to another person. The accused was obviously upset with the damage to his vehicle whereas the people there instead of addressing this issue stopped him from leaving, took issue with the manner in which he drove and then ordered him to take off. I think that the accused may well generate some sympathy with the court in the circumstances.

Kulyk said the letter was his initial reaction or initial impression of the file. When he writes a letter like this, Kulyk does not, however, word the letter the way he might if he intended it to be a public document. In a public document, he would usually go into more detail and cite cases. He might word things more carefully. Kulyk views letters he writes to the police as confidential private documents. That is how the courts view the situation. The Crown is not required to disclose correspondence with the police to the general public or to defence counsel. They are privileged documents and not disclosable. December 7, 2009 Robin testified that he received Kulyk’s December 3, 2009 memorandum in his “work flow”. He probably first saw it on December 7, 2009. The work flow is part of the computerized system at the police office. If there are new items for an officer to review, they are listed in the work flow. The Kulyk Memorandum was in Robin’s work flow. When Robin read Kulyk’s memorandum, he felt he had never seen anything so subjective, unfair and inconsistent with the evidence. Robin says he was surprised. December 7 or 8, 2009 Staff Sergeant Tadd Kellett testified that as of December 2009, Constable Patrick Robin was an officer who reported to him in foot patrol traffic division at the PA Police Service. On December 7 or 8, 2009, Robin came to see Kellett about a December 3, 2009 memorandum he had received in his workflow from Crown Prosecutor Joseph Kulyk. In the memorandum, Kulyk said he did not feel a charge should go forward. Robin disagreed. He felt it was a good ticket and he wanted the prosecutor to go forward with the ticket. Kellett and Robin opened the workflow and looked at the memorandum. The content of the memorandum is quoted above. Robin briefly explained the case. Kellett told Robin that if he still wanted to go forward with the ticket and there were more facts to the case, then Robin should get the facts, let the prosecutor know there was more information and that he still wanted to go forward with the ticket. The meeting was short. Robin says he has some vague recollection of he and Constable Glynn looking at the Kulyk Memorandum on Robin’s workflow and Kellett coming in and standing behind them. They discussed the memo, but he does not recall what, if anything Kellett said.

22

December 14, 2009 Robin testified that on the morning of December 14, 2009, he went for coffee with two other constables. Robin showed them the Kulyk Memorandum and asked them what they thought of it. One of them suggested Robin go to get Kulyk’s permission to show the memorandum to the witnesses because the witnesses should know why Kulyk didn’t think there was a likelihood of conviction. Robin was on foot patrol in downtown Prince Albert from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 or 2:00 p.m., so he decided to go see Joe Kulyk at his office. Robin walked in and walked into Kulyk’s office. Robin said he wanted to discuss the Reimer matter. Kulyk pulled the file from a cabinet in his office and scanned the file. Robin says Kulyk then said, “The soccer community should not have told Casey Reimer to fuck off, which caused him to drive erratically.” Robin says he said, “Are you telling me Casey Reimer gets a free pass in this town?” Robin does not recall if Kulyk responded. Robin then says he said, “Each and every witness will see or hear your memo.” Robin says Kulyk then said, “Okay,” and Robin turned and left the office. When Kulyk said, “Okay,” Robin took that to be permission to disclose the memorandum. Robin acknowledges that he did not specifically ask Joe Kulyk for his permission to disclose the memorandum. In his February 18, 2010 statement to PCC Investigator Wade, Robin said that during the week after the December 14 meeting with Kulyk, he made follow-up calls to the witnesses and told them about the Kulyk memorandum. He also said that’s when he discovered Lukowski had not been served with a subpoena. Robin told the PCC investigator it was at this time that “…it was stopped from uh within the office here at some point by Sergeant Kellett and that’s through the court desk.” In his interview with Wade, Robin also said that on December 14, he told each of the witnesses that “if Joe Kulyk did not want to prosecute that I would prosecute the matter…” he also said he called the court house to make sure the case was still scheduled for January 5, 2010. Robin says after the meeting with Kulyk he returned to work and he was “not quiet” about what Kulyk had said to him. He specifically went back to the two constables with whom he had had coffee and told them what had happened. Kulyk testified that Constable Robin came to the prosecutor’s office to discuss the Reimer case. Robin did not agree with Kulyk’s decision. Kulyk didn’t agree with Robin. Kulyk testified that Robin was upset and very insistent. Robin argued about why the case should proceed. Robin was upset that Kulyk was not proceeding with it. Kulyk did not change his view of the case. Kulyk says when Robin was leaving the office, he said something like, “So you’re not going to proceed with this case?” Kulyk responded, “No.” Robin then said something like, “Well, then I’m going to give copies of your memorandum to the witnesses.” Kulyk said something like, “Do what you want.” Kulyk testified that he did not react more strongly to Robin’s comment because he thought Robin knew it was a private communication and was just making an idle threat. Also, in this case, there was really nothing in the memorandum, so if Robin did carry through

23

on his threat, Kulyk felt it wouldn’t really affect him. Robin did not specifically ask Kulyk for permission to disclose the memorandum or whether Kulyk minded if he did. Robin just said he was going to do it. Sometime in December 2009 Kellett testified that about a week and a half after the December 3 meeting with Robin, he asked Robin if he had reached the prosecutor, Kulyk, about the ticket. Robin said he had left Kulyk a phone message. Kellett heard nothing more about the matter until January 6, 2010. Kellett testified that at no time did Robin ask for Kellett’s permission to run the Reimer traffic ticket trial on his own, nor did Robin inform Kellett before the court date of his intention to run the trial. Robin says he does not recall any discussions with Kellett about the Reimer matter during this time. December 15, 2009 Robin testified that one day between December 14 and December 17, 2009, he contacted Mike Parenteau. He does not recall the exact date but he gave Parenteau a copy of the Kulyk memorandum. He believes he also called Moniuk and Lukowski during this time frame to tell them about Kulyk’s memorandum. Robin says that sometime during this week, he also asked Kristy Wright to prepare a subpoena for him for the Reimer trial. He says he asked Wright if he needed “paper” on that, meaning the “pink sheet” or Trial Notification and she said he did not need it. Robin says he asked for the subpoena for himself because “things had changed and stuff”. He hadn’t subpoenaed himself back in August but that didn’t mean he wasn’t a compellable witness. He says he discussed the need for a subpoena with Ian Reiman. In British Columbia, Robin would not have had to subpoena himself. He was unsure of what to do, so he consulted with Reiman because Reiman had lot of experience. Reiman told him he needed the subpoena. While Parenteau was unsure of the date, he testified that some time after the Soccer Field Incident, Constable Robin contacted him and told him the Crown Prosecutor dropped the charges against Reimer. Robin gave Parenteau a copy of a December 3, 2009 letter from the Crown Prosecutor. Moniuk testified that Robin called him on December 15, 2009 and told him that the Reimer case had been cancelled, that the police department and the Crown had dropped it. Moniuk says Robin told him Robin was getting a bit of heat on the inside from management and staff members. Moniuk says he asked Robin if he felt the case was “kind of whitewashed”, and Robin replied “Yes”. Robin wanted to go ahead with the case. During this telephone conversation, Robin asked Moniuk if he would still be willing to go forward with the case. Moniuk expressed his view that if the police department and the Crown didn’t want to proceed, what chance did they have if they went forward.

24

December 18, 2009 Moniuk testified that on December 18, 2009, Mike Parenteau gave him a copy of a letter from the Crown Prosecutor. Parenteau said he got this letter from Robin. Parenteau says on a date close to the time of the Reimer trial, Robin contacted Parenteau and said he was going to continue on with the Reimer case. He asked Parenteau if he was going to testify. Parenteau said he would. December 2009 Ian Reiman testified that at some point Robin talked to him about possibly prosecuting the Casey Reimer matter. Most of Reiman’s involvement to this point had been discussions about the upcoming disciplinary matters. Reiman told Robin that as far as he knew there was no policy against prosecuting and no written rule forbidding it, but to check on it to make sure if there was a policy. He told Robin that if he felt confident prosecuting the ticket, he should do it because the customers come first. Reiman testified that Robin told him he had a face to face meeting with the Crown prosecutor and the Crown prosecutor had given Robin the green light to prosecute the Reimer matter, that Kulyk had told him to go ahead and do what he wanted. Robin testified that Reiman told him he thought there was no policy preventing Robin from prosecuting the matter, but Robin said he did not recall Reiman telling him that he should check to see if there was any policy. December 30, 2009 Robin testified that it was probably around December 30, 2009 when he decided he might go ahead and prosecute the Reimer matter if he couldn’t get Kulyk to agree to do so. Robin contacted Ron Moniuk about testifying at the Reimer matter. Robin made a notation on his copy of the Trial Notification. It says:

10:22 a.m. Spoke to Moniuk. Change of tune. Will not proceed as Crown is not on-board. Lost faith in the CJS [criminal justice system]

This is followed by a second notation: 10:24 a.m. Spoke to Mike Parenteau. Wants to proceed and has called Kulyk and left message. No return call.

Robin also spoke to Louis Lukowski later in his shift between about 5:45 and 6:45 p.m. Lukowski was willing to testify. Lukowski said he had not received a subpoena for the court date. On December 30, 2009, Robin told the witnesses that if Kulyk would not prosecute the case, he would prosecute it for them. Robin says that while he had previously mentioned to the witnesses that he was prepared to prosecute the case, he had not yet made a decision to do so.

25

Robin testified that before he left work on December 30, he went to check with Kristy Wright as to the status of his request for a subpoena for himself. The subpoena wasn’t ready yet. Then he asked Wright what had happened to Louis Lukowski’s subpoena because Lukowski had said he didn’t get it. Robin says Wright did something on her computer screen and said, “Sergeant Kellett stopped it. You should probably ask him why he did that.” In the PCC interview, Robin said he never got a chance to ask Kellett why he had stopped the subpoena. Sergeant Kellett was working on December 30, 2009. Robin never went to Kellett to discuss the possible options in relation to the Reimer matter. December 31, 2009 Robin testified that after he talked to Louis Lukowski, the next day he walked into to prosecutor’s office again to follow up with Kulyk. Robin says he did this because he had contacted his clients and three of four of them wanted to testify. The fourth person was Shawna Lukowski who is Louis Lukowski’s daughter. She had not been subpoenaed but according to Louis, she wanted to testify. Kulyk was away until January 4. Robin told the woman at the front desk that he needed to talk to Kulyk on the 4th because it had to do with a trial scheduled for the 5th. She said she would leave a sticky note. Kristy Wright testified that on December 31, 2009, Constable Robin came to her and asked her to add his name to the witness list for the Casey Reimer trial. She added Robin’s name to the witness list on the Trial Notification form, dated it December 31, 2009 and initialed the change. Wright prepared the subpoena and sent it to be issued. Robin says the subpoena is dated December 31, 2009 and that it was in his in-basket when he got to work on January 1, 2010. Robin says the subpoena remained in his in-basket until he returned from court on January 5, 2010. Robin acknowledged that even if Kellett was not on duty, if Robin had an issue he needed to discuss with someone, he could always to go the NCO of patrol. The NCO on December 31 was likely Sergeant Dave Schluff. Robin did not talk to Schluff or anyone else about the Reimer matter. He acknowledged that prosecuting the Reimer matter would not be regular routine, but said he was still hoping at that point to persuade Kulyk to run the case. January 3, 2010 The typewritten date on the subpoena to Robin to attend the Reimer trial is December 31, 2009, but it is struck out and handwriting reflects the subpoena was actually issued on 03 January, 2010. January 4, 2010 Parenteau testified that after he received the copy of the Kulyk memorandum, he called Kulyk. The prosecutor told Parenteau the charge that was made wasn’t the correct one. Parenteau suggested the prosecutor and the officer have a

26

discussion and get the correct charges. The prosecutor said no, that the charges were not proceeding. Kulyk testified that he was away during the Christmas break and when he returned he had a voice message from someone named Parenteau who was a witness in the Reimer case. Kulyk also had a message to call Constable Robin. Kulyk called Parenteau. Parenteau was upset that Kulyk was not proceeding with the Reimer charge. Kulyk attempted to explain to Parenteau why the prosecution would not be successful and why he was not proceeding with it. During the conversation, Parenteau made reference to Kulyk’s December 3 memorandum. Parenteau was not happy. Kulyk told Parenteau he need not attend court the next day. Kulyk then called Constable Robin at his home. Robin said the witnesses wanted to proceed to trial. Kulyk said that it wasn’t their decision. Robin asked whose decision it was. Kulyk said it was his, Kulyk’s, decision. The conversation ended with Kulyk confirming that the trial would not be proceeding and that Kulyk would not be prosecuting the case. Kulyk testified that at no time during this conversation did Robin indicate that he intended to prosecute the matter himself, nor did he ask Kulyk for permission to do so. Robin testified he received a call from Kulyk. Robin was at home sleeping. When Robin answered the phone, Kulyk asked how he could help him. Robin told Kulyk he had followed up with his clients and they wanted their day in court. Robin asked Kulyk if he was going to prosecute the matter. Kulyk said no. Robin asked why not. Kulyk said Robin had issued the wrong offence. Robin asked what the offence should have been and Kulyk said, “due care and attention”. Robin asked Kulyk again if he was going to prosecute. Kulyk said no. Robin says he then just said thank you because he didn’t want to argue because he was still in bed next to his wife. When asked why he didn’t tell Kulyk he wanted to prosecute the case, Robin said “…I could have, but I didn’t.” Robin says on January 4, 2010, in consultation with Ian Reiman, he made his decision to prosecute the Reimer matter. He acknowledges that he had formulated the possibility earlier, but he made the final decision to go ahead on January 4 when he was unable to persuade Kulyk to prosecute. Robin says knew he could legally prosecute the Reimer Ticket. He felt there was no policy saying he could not prosecute a traffic ticket. He consulted with Reiman because at the time Reiman was Robin’s “consultant, adviser, advocate”. Robin was using Reiman to assist him with his disciplinary matters that were scheduled for March 2010. Reiman wanted to attend the March hearing with Robin. Even when Robin hired a lawyer for a few months, Reiman was the person who helped Robin out. Robin says he believed Reiman could help him out because he was a retired police officer who knew policy and because Reiman had researched The Police Act. Robin felt Reiman was competent and could help Robin defend himself.

27

Robin now says he wishes he had consulted with Kellett before he went ahead with the prosecution because of what he and his family have gone through since, but he didn’t consult because he didn’t think he had to. The January 5, 2010 Trial Deputy Chief Cooper testified that to his knowledge, Robin did not obtain approval from his NCO or anyone higher than his NCO to attend court to prosecute the Reimer matter. Robin testified that the impression he got from Kulyk when he spoke to him on January 4, was that Kulyk was not going to show up for the court case. Other officers had talked about Crowns just not showing up. Robin testified the case was set for 2:00 p.m. January 5, 2010. Robin was on a day off. He went to the police office beforehand to print off an SGI driving record for Casey Reimer. Robin says he always did this when he prosecuted cases in British Columbia. Robin then went to the court house. There were two other PA Police Service officers present as well as some RCMP officers. The two PA Police Service constables he remembers were Shawn Roden and Dallas Stender. During conversation before the courtroom was opened, Robin told the officers he was there to prosecute the Reimer matter. When Louis and Shawna Lukowski arrived, Robin took them into an interview room to prepare. When Robin came out of the interview room, he saw Joe Kulyk walk past him. He never spoke to Kulyk. When everyone was in the courtroom and Reimer’s case was called, Reimer said he was pleading not guilty and Robin stood up and told the judge he was going to be prosecuting the matter for the Prince Albert Police Service. There were three trials on the list and the Reimer trial was the third. Robin left the court room and went to call Mike Parenteau because Parenteau had not showed up. When Robin asked Parenteau why he had not showed up, Parenteau said he had talked to a sergeant the day before and the sergeant told him not to show up. Parenteau didn’t know who the sergeant was. Robin told Parenteau that the Lukowskis were there and the trial was going ahead. Parenteau came to testify. Robin said he was in the hallway when Kulyk came out of the court room. Robin says he attempted to make eye contact with Kulyk, but Kulyk walked right past him and walked out. While the second trial was in progress, Casey Reimer and his girlfriend approached Robin. Reimer asked for a “break”. Robin said there would be no breaks today. Reimer then asked for an adjournment and Robin said he would not be recommending any adjournment. Robin told Reimer he could ask for an adjournment, but Robin had clients from out of town and he wasn’t going to ask them to come back. Reimer said he wanted the adjournment because his lawyer, Ajay Krishan, had passed away. Reimer also said he was on the outs with his witness, Andrew Brooks. When the Reimer case came up, Robin put his witnesses on the stand and lead the prosecution evidence. Robin says he also asked if evidence of service and

28

identity were needed and Reimer said no. Then Reimer asked for an adjournment and the judge granted the adjournment to January 18, 2010. Robin felt his witnesses had done very well and that the prosecution of the ticket had gone well. He was fully prepared to come back and finish the trial on January 18. Robin felt he had the grounds for the ticket in the first instance and he “believed full-heartedly that it should have been marching into court.” Robin testified that after court, he spent some time talking to the witnesses, and during that time Louis Lukowski asked about being paid for his expenses. In British Columbia the RCMP didn’t fund travel expenses or conduct money for witnesses, so Robin was unclear on what to do. He suggested Lukowski talk to his MLA or to the Crown Prosecutor’s office. Robin says if he had known conduct money and travel expenses were available for a witness, he would have done more for Lukowski. Kulyk testified that there were several trials set for the afternoon of January 5. He was the prosecutor on more than one. He intended to enter a stay on the Reimer matter and then proceed with the other matter. When Kulyk arrived at the court, a member of the PA Police Service who was at the court told Kulyk that Robin intended to personally prosecute the Reimer case. Kulyk was surprised by this and didn’t have a great deal of time to think about it. Kulyk didn’t see any legal impediment to Robin prosecuting the case. The RCMP in Prince Albert often prosecute their own provincial offences. Kulyk felt if the PA Police Service wanted to start prosecuting their own provincial cases, he would not stand in their way. Kulyk did not consider whether the prosecution might have been in violation of PA Police Service Policy. Kulyk testified that at the time he was not aware that Reimer had earlier lodged a complaint against Robin. Kulyk said if he had been made aware of that information, his actions would have been quite different because it is highly improper for a police officer or anyone else to prosecute a case where they have a personal interest in the outcome. Where there was a complaint against Robin, he would have a personal interest in the outcome. In Kulyk’s view, that was totally unacceptable. Kulyk testified that in all his years as a prosecutor he had never seen another situation where an officer prosecuted a matter where the Crown had decided not to proceed. In Kulyk’s view, Robin would not have been a necessary witness at the trial. Casey Reimer testified that he attended court on January 5, 2010, to defend the traffic ticket charge. When he got there, he approached Constable Robin to ask for an adjournment because Reimer’s lawyer had passed away. Reimer wasn’t ready to proceed. Robin said no to the adjournment request. Robin put his witnesses on the stand and Reimer did his best to cross-examine them. When Robin’s witnesses were finished, Reimer asked for an adjournment and it was granted. After court, he asked Robin for copies of documents including witness statements. The only statements Robin would provide were those given by Reimer and Brooks. Reimer then started phoning around to the Crown and to the

29

police station trying to get hold of the statements so he could properly prepare his defence. Louis Lukowski testified that he attended the trial of the Reimer matter and testified for the prosecution. Constable Robin was the person who asked him the questions when he testified. While he could not remember the date, Michael Parenteau testified that he attended court and gave evidence in the Reimer matter. Parenteau was questioned by Robin and Reimer. Parenteau did not recall receiving a subpoena for court, but he did recall Robin calling to ask him to attend. After the trial, Robin went back to the office. He went to traffic section to get the subpoena from his in-basket. He testified he believes Kellett’s office door was closed when he got there. Robin says he filled out an overtime claim and attached the “slave” copy of the subpoena to the claim. Robin did not recall for sure whether he then put the claim into the admin basket or Kellett’s basket, but he thought he’d put it into the admin basket. Staff Sergeant Kellett recalls Constable Robin returning to the police station from court, wearing a suit. [Kellett said he thought this was January 6, 2010, but the other evidence establishes this happened on January 5, 2010.] At the end of that day, Inspector Bonkowski put Robin’s Overtime Report on Kellett’s desk with a sticky note attached. The note suggested Kellett look into this overtime claim because it was not signed by a prosecutor. Kellett also noted that the subpoena did not include an affidavit showing that it had been served. Robin was not in his office at the time, so Kellett waited until the next day to talk to him. The Bonkowski note reads:

Please verify the attached Overtime Report or direct Cst Robin to obtain a signature from the Crown. I am in the process of clarifying a clear process and will accept your signature as verification for this one.

January 2010 Ian Reiman testified that Patrick Robin told him he had gone ahead with the Reimer prosecution, the witnesses had been put on the stand and the judge adjourned the case to hear from the defendant. Reiman told Robin that if a Provincial Court Judge thought highly enough of the case to adjourn the matter, it meant Robin and the witnesses had done a good enough job that the judge wanted to hear from the defendant. January 7, 2010 Robin testified that that he was on days off on January 5 and 6, 2010 and returned to regular duty on the 7th. Robin had the master copy of the subpoena for the Reimer matter and a subpoena for another matter. He took them to Constable Glynn and asked Glynn to sign the affidavits of service. Robin testified that as he was leaving to go on foot patrol, Kellett called him into his office and told him Bonkowski had denied his overtime claim. Robin asked why and Kellett said he didn’t know. Robin then told Kellett he better know the whole story and he told Kellett the story of “the claim and stuff”. Kellett never

30

gave Robin any indication Robin had done anything wrong. Robin says he then asked Kellett if he had any experience in front of Judge Goliath and they talked about that. Then Robin got up and walked over the side of the desk where his overtime claim was sitting, tapped on the claim and said, “Okay, well, you’re going to – you’re going to look into this claim ‘cause I want to know the answer why is it denied.” Kellett testified he called Robin into his office and spoke to Robin about the overtime slip and the note from Bonkowski. Robin explained that this was about the ticket involving the kid whose vehicle was hit by a soccer ball, the case that the Crown prosecutor, Kulyk did not want to proceed with. Robin told Kellett that he had gone to Kulyk’s office in person and talked to Kulyk. Robin said he had some “choice words” for the prosecutor. Robin then said he went and “represented” the ticket on his own. He told Kellett he had brought in his own witnesses and run the trial on his own after the RCMP finished running their trial. Robin then tapped on Kellett’s desk on the overtime slip and said, “You take care of this slip.” Kellett said he would look into it. Robin stood up, tapped on the slip a second time, said, “Take care of this slip,” and walked out of Kellett’s office. Kellett testified that when Robin was telling him what he had done, Kellett just sat back “in kind of awe”. At the time Kellett was shocked and didn’t have much of a reply. Robin kept talking and Kellett kept listening. “I was just holy smokes.” After receiving the information from Robin, Kellett sat there for about ten minutes trying to comprehend what happened. Then he went talk to his immediate supervisor, Inspector Brian Bonkowski. They discussed the situation and then turned the matter over to Inspector Stienwand because the matter was outside the normal and they felt an investigation was required into what had actually happened. Kellett had never seen an officer prosecute a traffic ticket. He had never experienced a situation where an officer had gone ahead with something a Crown prosecutor had decided should not be done. Kellett prepared a memo about the overtime claim and otherwise at this point his involvement in the matter ended. Chief McFee testified that he first became aware that Robin had prosecuted the Reimer Ticket on January 6 or 7, 2010 when Inspectors Stienwand and Bonkowski brought the matter to his attention. McFee knew nothing of the Reimer case previously and had no involvement in Kulyk’s decision not to prosecute the matter. McFee said that at no time did anyone approach him and ask him to help get the ticket pulled or withdrawn. The Chief ordered an investigation. He did this because the information he had suggested there was no prosecutor signature on Robin’s overtime slip and Robin had proceeded with the case against the prosecutor’s decision. McFee was aware of the public concern expressed by Reimer about Robin’s conduct. McFee felt Robin’s actions demonstrated bias or conflict of interest. He was also aware of other outstanding disciplinary matters involving Constable Robin.

31

At some point, Kellett received two subpoenas for Constable Robin with Constable Glynn’s signature on the affidavits of service. When he received these, he noticed that on one of them the subpoena was for January 5 for the Reimer trial and the affidavit said it had been served on January 7. Kellett was supposed to sign off on this, but he did not. On January 7, 2010, Constable Brian Glynn of the PA Police Service was sitting in the office at the police station along with Constable Robin. Glynn testified that on this date, Robin asked him to sign affidavits of service for some subpoenas. It is not unusual for one officer to ask another to serve a subpoena on him. Glynn did not read the subpoenas at the time. One of these subpoenas was a subpoena addressed to Constable Robin requiring him to attend the Casey Reimer trial on January 5, 2010. When he signed the affidavit of service, Glynn was not aware that one of the subpoenas was for the Reimer matter. He did not read the front page of the subpoena. Glynn said it would be unusual for an officer to have another officer serve a subpoena after the court date for which the subpoena was issued. Glynn also recalls a brief conversation with Robin that morning about the Reimer case, that the witnesses had been in court and that the case had been adjourned. Robin told Glynn he was disappointed that the witnesses were all there for their day in court and Judge Goliath had adjourned the case. January 7 or 8, 2010 Deputy Chief Cooper discovered Robin had prosecuted the Reimer Ticket when Inspector Bonkowski came to him and told him Robin had submitted an overtime slip for attendance in court on the Reimer matter and that it appeared Robin had prosecuted the ticket. It was unusual for an officer to prosecute anything, so Cooper asked Inspector Kelly Stienwand, one of the inspectors in charge of patrol division to start an investigation into what had occurred. Later Cooper found out Robin had prosecuted his own ticket and that the accused was someone who had made a complaint against Robin. Cooper was very concerned about perception of bias because Robin had taken it upon himself to prosecute a case against a person who had complained against him. While Cooper was looking into the matter, his staff told him someone had contacted the police station to ask for additional disclosure in the Reimer matter. January 11, 2010 Within a few days after Cooper discovered that Robin had attended court to prosecute the Reimer Ticket, Cooper contacted Joe Kulyk and asked that the Crown resume control of the case. Cooper informed Kulyk that someone was looking for disclosure. Kulyk said he was going to withdraw the ticket. Cooper told Kulyk he didn’t care what he did with it. In cross-examination, Cooper confirmed that his telephone conversation with Kulyk was likely Monday, January 11, 2010. McFee testified that he did not direct anyone on what should happen with the Reimer prosecution.

32

Kulyk testified that sometime on or before January 14, 2010, he received a phone call from Deputy Chief Cooper advising him that Constable Robin would not be proceeding with the Reimer case. Cooper asked Kulyk to take over the matter and deal with it. Kulyk told Cooper he had had not changed his mind and would probably be staying the matter. Cooper said, “Do what you want with it.” January 13, 2010 Robin was away on a fishing trip from January 9 to 13, 2010. When Robin returned home, his wife told him she had taken two phone calls from union president Sergeant Jason Stonechild, one on January 11 and one on January 13. Robin did not call Stonechild back that evening. January 14, 2010 McFee decided to put Robin on administrative leave until the investigation could be completed. McFee wanted to remove Robin from any situation that could further put the public in jeopardy. McFee prepared a Memo to Robin as follows:

I, Dale McFee, Chief of Police of the Prince Albert Police Service, direct that pursuant to Section 54 of the Police Act, that an investigation be conducted into your conduct related to your prosecution of a traffic offence against Casey Reimer, and events related to that matter. Pending the completion of this investigation, you are temporarily directed to commence an administrative leave effective immediately and until further notice. It is believed that this temporary leave from active duty is necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the police service.

For the period of this administrative leave, you are not to report for work or otherwise attend to police duties unless so directed by a senior officer. In particular, you are directed not to attend court in relation to the Casey Reimer matter. Additionally, you are directed not to have any further contact with Casey Reimer or any of the witnesses associated with Mr. Reimer’s court matters unless otherwise ordered by the Chief of Police or Deputy Chief of Police.

If you are required to attend court as a witness on any other matter during the period of this leave, you shall report such requirement to the Deputy Chief of Police immediately upon notification, and follow any directions given by him respecting such matters.

Please note that you will continue to receive full pay and benefits during the period of this leave. [emphasis added]

Stonechild called Robin at around 9:00 a.m. on January 14. Robin testified that Stonechild told him Chief McFee wanted Robin in the office immediately so he could place him on administrative leave for prosecuting the Reimer matter. Robin couldn’t go right away because he had his young son with him. They arranged to meet at 1:30 p.m.. Robin describes the meeting thus: When he got to the meeting, those in attendance included Chief McFee, Deputy Chief Cooper, Inspector Stienwand, Inspector Bonkowski, Sergeant Jason Stonechild and Staff Sergeant Lawrie George. The latter two were from the executive of the union. McFee had a memo in front of him. He told Robin they had started an internal investigation and he was placing Robin on Section 54 admin leave. Robin didn’t know at the time what Section 54 was. Robin asked if someone had come forward. The chief said no.

33

McFee then said he wanted to hear Robin’s side but not right now. McFee then left the meeting. Stienwand told Robin they were obliged to notify the Public Complaints Commission. Robin remembers Cooper talking about what to do if Robin had court commitments while on admin leave. Stienwand told Robin he was not to attend the continuation of the Reimer trial on the 18th, that they would have a prosecutor attend. Robin kept asking if someone had complained. Bonkowski finally said it’s fair to say nobody came forward and complained. After the meeting, Bonkowski and Stienwand escorted Robin to his locker to get his keys and his pistol. While they were by the locker and Robin’s back was to him, Stienwand said, “Why don’t you take everything?” Robin said “Na.” Then they escorted Robin out to the street where he met with his union representatives. At the meeting, Deputy Chief Cooper directed Robin to have no further involvement with the Reimer matter. Reimer testified that the trial had been adjourned and about half-way between the date of the trial and the adjourned date, the Crown called him and told him they were going to dismiss the charge and he didn’t have to attend court again. Kulyk testified that he called Reimer, probably on January 14, and told him the Crown would be withdrawing the charges. Kulyk was in court on other matters on January 14, 2010, so he asked the clerk to bring the Reimer matter before the judge. Kulyk withdrew the matter that day. Howard Georgeson testified that he did not know Casey Reimer and that he had no involvement whatsoever with the withdrawal of the Casey Reimer Ticket. Georgeson had retired from the PA Police Service in July 2009. Robin says on January 14, 2010, when he received the memo putting him on administrative leave, he was very concerned about being directed not to attend the Reimer trial on January 18 and not to have further contact with the witnesses. He says this “…just heightened my suspicions and grounds right – right – right on that day.” Robin was also very concerned about his superior officer putting him on admin leave. Robin felt the direction not to contact the witnesses was an abuse of authority. The first thing Robin did when he got home was call Ian Reiman. He asked Reiman about Section 54. Reiman referred Robin to The Police Act on the Internet. Robin read Section 54. Then he and Reiman talked at length. January 15, 2010 Chief McFee testified that on January 15, 2010, at his direction, Inspector Kelly Stienwand sent a letter to the Public Complaints Commission as follows:

Please note that subject to section 54(2) of The Police Act 1990, Chief Dale McFee has ordered an investigation in to the actions and conduct of Cst Patrick Robin. The actions of Cst Robin subject to this investigation are not the result of a public complaint however do involve members of the public. As of the 14th January 2010, Cst Robin has been placed on Administrative Leave.

34

I ask that you review the circumstances and consider your authority under section 54(3) of the Act. The following is a summary of the matter.

[here follows a summary of events]

It is troubling to the Chief of Police that Cst Robin would disregard due process, police service policy and the chain of command in his effort to prosecute Mr. Reimer against the decision of the Crown Prosecutor. Furthermore, even though Cst Robin knew that Casey Reimer had filed a complaint against him, Cst Robin did not either respect or realize that his actions to personally prosecute Mr. Reimer could be easily seen as a conflict of interest.

Please note that after Cst Robin was placed on administrative leave, D/Chief Cooper turned the Reimer prosecution over to the Crown and asked them to follow up with the case as they saw fit. As a result the Crown has since had the matter withdrawn.

Please contact me if you have any further questions. I look forward to receiving direction from the PCC.

As a result of this letter, the PCC took over the investigation. January 2010 Reiman testified that at some point earlier, on an unidentified date, Robin and Reiman agreed that Reiman would go to the disciplinary appeal hearing with Robin. [This was the pending appeal hearing with respect to other matters which are not before me in this case and which were scheduled before another hearing officer for March 2010.] Reiman was not going to be in the position of counsel, but he had checked The Police Act and there is a section that allows for counsel or an agent. Shortly after this, Robin called Reiman and told him that he had been placed on administrative leave because of the Reimer prosecution. As far as Reiman was concerned, the fact Robin was placed on administrative leave together with “other little things that led up to the prosecution of this ticket” meant that the “second that that charge was withdrawn in court is where the criminal offence of obstructing justice happened without lawful excuse.” He expressed that opinion to Patrick Robin. Reiman questioned the lawfulness of the Chief’s direction to Robin to stay away from the Reimer witnesses. To Reiman that was evidence of an attempt to cover something up. Reiman encouraged Robin to complain to the Board of Police Commissioners. Robin did this. The Board’s response is not in evidence. When Robin got his response from the Board of Police Commissioners, Reiman told him his next step was to complain to an outside agency like the RCMP. Reiman mentioned to Robin that back in 2005, upper management members of the PA Police Service were found criminally responsible for obstructing a peace officer in similar circumstances. Reiman says he did not provide Robin with any advice about the fact he had been placed on administrative leave.

35

January 19, 2010 Staff Sergeant Roy Derworiz of the Prince Albert RCMP testified that on the morning of January 19, 2010, he took a telephone call from a person who identified himself as Patrick Robin. The caller said he was a member of the PA Police Service and had been placed on administrative leave. The caller said he wanted to proceed with obstruction of justice charges and an investigation into the Chief and other members of the PA Police Service in relation to his investigation and subsequent prosecution of a traffic ticket that he had investigated in June of 2009. The caller said he had three witnesses to the traffic offence he had prosecuted. He said he felt the RCMP should investigate the matter because he felt the Chief and others from the department had interfered with his investigation and prosecution. The caller said he had received correspondence from the Crown attorney, Joe Kulyk, that the matter should not be prosecuted because the evidence was not such that it would result in the likelihood of conviction. After taking details and name and phone number, Derworiz told the caller he would plan a course of action and return with a reply as to what would be done. After he spoke to Robin, Derworiz considered the matter and decided since it was a provincial matter, Robin should be referred to the provincial complaints people in Regina. Derworiz also spoke to the RCMP Criminal Operations people in Regina. They concurred with his course of action. On advice of his superiors, Derworiz advised Deputy Chief Cooper of Robin’s complaint. He said this likely occurred on January 20, 2010. Robin testified that on January 19, 2010 he called the RCMP because he believed there was administrative interference in the Reimer matter. The “real big trigger” of Robin’s grounds for belief was when Ian Reiman called the court house on the afternoon of January 18, 2010 to find out the disposition of the Reimer matter which had been scheduled for that morning. The woman at the court told Reiman there had been no court that morning. She looked things up and told Reiman the matter had been withdrawn January 14, 2010. Robin says, “I thought right there that was the trigger.” He felt there was interference pulling the ticket. He now knew someone had gone to pull the ticket in court on the same day Robin was put on administrative leave. Robin consulted with Reiman and decided to go to the RCMP. Robin called the RCMP to make a complaint. He spoke to Sergeant Derworiz. He hoped the RCMP would investigate the matter. He spoke to the officer hoping that what he said would be kept in confidence. Derworiz said he would have to think about it and get back to Robin. Robin suggested he should at least contact the court house to ascertain the disposition of the Casey Reimer Ticket. He said he’d get someone to do that.

36

January 20 and January 22, 2010 Stonechild called Robin on each of these two days to talk to him about what he knew. Stonechild told Robin the offences had to do with prosecuting a traffic ticket, a subpoena and overtime. January 22, 2010 RCMP Staff Sergeant Derworiz testified that he called Patrick Robin and asked him to come to the Prince Albert RCMP detachment. Robin attended at 2:00 p.m. that day and Derworiz presented Robin with a piece of correspondence suggesting he take his complaint to the Public Complaints Commission in Regina. That letter, dated January 21, 2010, reads:

Mr. Robin, I have had opportunity to review your concern. The usual protocol when a Municipal Police Force is involved is for you to refer the matter to the following:

Public Complaints Commission 300 1919 Saskatchewan Drive Prince Albert, SK SP 4H2

Telephone: 1-306-787-6519 1-866-256-6194

With this, our file will be concluded.

The letter was copied to the PCC. Derworiz also told Robin at that time that something like this could consume you. Robin testified Derworiz called him on January 22 and asked him to come in. Robin went to meet with Derworiz. The meeting was short. Derworiz gave Robin the January 21, letter and said, “With this our file will be concluded.” Derworiz started to talk about a situation where an RCMP member was going through something like this. Robin didn’t let Derworiz continue. Derworiz then said, “Try not to consume yourself, you’ll get sick over this.” Then Derworiz left. Reiman testified that when Robin got the letter telling him the RCMP would not be investigating, he and Robin discussed what Robin should do next. Reiman felt there was no authority in The Police Act for Robin to go to the PCC. He felt that if Robin went to the PCC, he was setting himself up for insubordination charges and he would be fired. Reimer expressed this opinion to Robin. Reiman says he based this opinion on a conversation he once had with Deputy Chief Cooper when Cooper told him if a constable has a complaint about the chief of police, he has to go to the board of police commissioners and that if he goes to the PCC, he sets himself up for insubordination and he will be fired. Reimer says he told Robin that he could “throw in the towel” anytime on this. Reiman testified that some time around this time, Robin told him he had received a memo from the Chief of Police telling him to stay away from the witnesses in the Casey Reimer matter. Reiman told Robin that administration could not stop Robin from pursuing evidence in a criminal matter like obstruction of justice. As far as Reiman was concerned, when the Reimer Ticket was pulled, the obstruction of justice occurred. He talked about this with Robin.

37

Reiman says he and Robin also discussed that it was good business to notify your complainants of the disposition of the case. Reiman felt this had not been done. Reiman and Robin also discussed the idea that if the witnesses weren’t happy with the outcome, they could make a phone call and voice their concern. Reiman came up with a plan to contact the witnesses. He scripted it. He obtained the contact information for the witnesses from the disclosure Robin had for the Reimer case. Robin e-mailed the contact numbers to Reiman. Reiman said he had helped other officers with cases of internal discipline and he had always remained anonymous. He wanted to keep it that way in Robin’s case as well. Reiman and Robin agreed that there was nothing unlawful in Reiman calling the witnesses. Reiman said his idea that Chief McFee was involved in pulling the Reimer Ticket came from past experience. He did not base his opinion that there was obstruction of justice on anything Patrick Robin had told him. He said it was just an opinion he formulated. Unknown date McFee testified that at some point Inspector Stienwand came to him and asked if he could grant payment to Louis Lukowski for his expenses for attending the Reimer trial. The Chief agreed and Lukowski was paid for expenses. McFee agreed to this because he felt Constable Robin probably didn’t know the process for recovering expenses and he felt it was in the best interests of the PA Police Service to reimburse Lukowski. January 27, 2010 Robin testified that he got an e-mail from Reiman asking for the names and numbers of the witnesses in the Reimer matter. Robin was heading out with his son, so he phoned Reiman. Reiman said it was time for the witnesses to know what was going on. Robin and Reiman had discussed this possibility earlier. Reiman said the witnesses needed to know Robin’s position and they needed to know the ticket had been withdrawn. Reiman thought these people should contact the mayor. Reiman had planned what he was going to say to the witnesses. Robin told Reiman he better know what he was doing. Reiman said, “You’ve got nothing to lose, everything to gain.” On the question of whether Robin knew the calls were going to be anonymous, Robin said, “That was his mastermind plan, I guess. I don’t know.” Robin says at the end of the day he e-mailed the information to Reiman. It included Parenteau’s home, cell and work numbers, Moniuk’s home number and Lukowski’s home number. Robin obtained Parenteau’s numbers and Moniuk’s number from their statements in the Reimer matter. He got Lukowski’s number from the phone book. Robin says that when he returned home with his son, he called Reiman and asked if Reiman had made the calls. Reiman said he had. Robin told Reiman he should not have done that because “It just presents problems.” Reiman said he’d

38

left a message with Lukowski, had a good talk with Parenteau and that the talk with Moniuk had not gone so well. Robin says:

He just didn’t seem to think that – that this could present problems, and that’s all I kind of said, and I don’t know what I really meant by that or not, presenting problems. I probably – I probably kind of referred to my situation with my union and stuff and that these people, they’re strangers.

Moniuk said he received an anonymous phone call on his home phone line at around 11:05 a.m. The caller told him Robin was in trouble. Moniuk asked who was calling. The person would not identify himself. The caller had Moniuk’s name and address. He told Moniuk that Robin and Mike Parenteau and other person went to court in January, but the case was dropped due to the lawyer dying on the complainants. The caller thought Moniuk had been at court. When Moniuk said he had not been at court, the caller told Moniuk he better go to the mayor and to the press to help Robin because Robin had gone above and beyond for him. Moniuk felt intimidated and threatened by the caller. Moniuk felt the call had been an unreasonable invasion of his privacy. Because the person would not identify himself, Moniuk initiated a trace on the call with Sask-Tel. Moniuk eventually found out the caller was an ex-Prince Albert police officer, Ian Reiman. Moniuk contacted Mike Parenteau who had also witnessed the incident on June 15, 2009. Moniuk and Parenteau were concerned about what might be going on at the police station. They didn’t trust anyone. They decided to have Moniuk’s wife’s secretary call the police department and ask Chief McFee to call them. Parenteau testified that one day when he was driving back to work after lunch, he received an anonymous phone call on his cell phone from someone who said Constable Robin was getting into trouble or was going to be wrongfully dismissed. The caller told Parenteau that the Chief of Police had dropped the charges against Reimer. The caller told Parenteau he should go to the mayor and the chief of police and tell them he thought Robin shouldn’t be in trouble. Parenteau felt the person was trying to intimidate him. Parenteau asked the caller several times to identify himself. All the caller said was, “You don’t know me, I don’t know you and it’s just better off keep it that way.” The caller told Parenteau it was none of his business who the caller was and that Parenteau should just do as he asked. Parenteau’s cell phone number was not listed. Parenteau had earlier given his cell phone number to Robin. The phone call upset Parenteau. He felt he was being intimidated because the caller came across fairly strong, really demanding. Parenteau was upset and worried for his family. Parenteau was considering calling the Chief of Police, but he was afraid he might get into trouble. He never called the police because in the meantime the PCC investigator, Wade, contacted him to ask for an interview. When Parenteau attended the interview with Wade, he told Wade about the anonymous phone call.

39

Reiman testified that he made anonymous phone calls to the Reimer case witnesses on January 27, 2010. Reimer says when he did this he was acting as Robin’s agent because The Police Act says an officer can have counsel or an agent. The first call was to Louis Lukowski. There was no answer, so Reiman left a message on the phone. Reiman testified that he had scripted what he was going to say ahead of time and he read the script:

Hi, Louis, Louis Lukowski. You don’t know me, but I’m calling from Prince Albert. That trial you had against that young fellow for driving like an idiot was withdrawn by the Chief of Police against the officer’s will, and now that officer is probably going to be fired over it. You may want to call the mayor and express your opinion on – about that because that’s not fair. Take care.

When asked where he got the information that the case had been withdrawn by the Chief of Police, Reiman said that was his opinion. Reiman said he next called Mike Parenteau. Reiman went through the same script and tried to conclude the conversation, but Parenteau kept asking for more information on what he should do. Reiman says the call lasted about five minutes, that he tried to conclude the call several times, but Parenteau wanted to talk. Reiman said he then called Ron Moniuk. Reiman began his script, but Moniuk cut him off and demanded to know who was calling. Reiman tried to return to his script but Moniuk “wasn’t having anything to do with it,” so Reiman said, “Thanks for your time, sorry to waste your time sir, and take care.” Reiman did not recall whether he called Patrick Robin or sent him an e-mail to let him know the calls had been made. Robin said “we should reconsider this”, but Reiman told him it was too late. Robin was not happy about the calls and the two of them had a major disagreement about it that eventually led to Reiman excluding himself from future participation in Robin’s matters. January 28, 2010 Chief McFee received a letter dated January 28, 2010 from the Public Complaints Commission as follows:

Thank you for your letter of January 15, 2010.

Pursuant to S. 54(3) of the Police Act, 1990, the PCC has deemed the matter relating to Cst. Robin to be a public complaint. Mr. Casey Reimer has been deemed to be the complainant, under the provisions of S. 54(4)(a) of the Act.

The investigation will be conducted by Dave Wade of our Regina office and you can expect to receive a report at the conclusion of the investigation. In accordance with S. 38(5)(b) of The Police Act, 1990, would you kindly serve the required notices on the subject officer and provide my officer with a copy of the notifications accordingly.

Attached is a copy of my acknowledgement to the complainant.

Moniuk and Parenteau never did go through with the phone call to Chief McFee because the next morning, Dave Wade from the PCC contacted them. Wade wanted to interview them. Moniuk met with Wade in Saskatoon that same day and gave a statement.

40

While Lukowski was not sure of the date, he testified that some time after he testified in the Reimer matter, he received an anonymous telephone call. The person, who sounded like a man, suggested to Lukowski that he get hold of the mayor or a member of parliament because Constable Robin was going to lose his job over the Reimer case. When Lukowski asked the man who he was, the man answered, “I’m nobody.” Reiman says at some point he put in a second call to Louis Lukowski. Lukowski listened to Reiman’s script and then they had a 15 to 20 minute cordial conversation. Robin testified that on January 28, 2010, two uniformed officers came to Robin’s house and delivered a memorandum from Chief McFee. That memorandum reads:

As you are aware, pursuant to Section 54(1) of The Police Act 1990, I have directed an investigation be conducted regarding your conduct as member of the Prince Albert Police Service. In particular, your prosecution of a traffic offence against Casey Reimer, and events related to that matter. In accordance with Section 54(2) I have advised the Public Complaints Commission in writing, of the substance of the matter.

Please be advised that the Public Complaints Commission has deemed this matter to be a public complaint under their authority of section 54(3) of The Police Act 1990. An investigator from the PCC has been assigned to conduct the investigation and he will be corresponding with you in the near future. At this point the allegations to be investigated as described in The Municipal Police Discipline Regulations 1991, are as follows:

1) Discreditable Conduct, Section 36(a)(d) Improper disclosure of information to wit; that without authorization allegedly disclosing the Crown’s memorandum to a civilian.

2) Insubordination by word or action, 37(b) for failing to obtain authorization to have a subpoena issued for himself for purposes of prosecuting Casey Reimer when the Crown Prosecutor had advised that it was not in the public interest to do so.

3) Insubordination by word or action, 37(b) for failing to obtain authorization to perform overtime duty in your action to personally prosecute Casey Reimer when the Crown Prosecutor had advised that it was not in the public interest to do so.

4) Discreditable conduct, Section 36(a)(v) for acting in a manner that is unbecoming or dishonorable to the member or to the police service for Cst. Robin’s actions in this matter.

Please note that the investigation may reveal additional allegations however, if this occurs you will be notified accordingly. I ask that you expect to report upon request to provide an administrative statement which will be obtained by the PCC investigator. If you choose to seek legal counsel in this matter, I ask that you do so in a timely manner.

Please note that all conditions of your Administrative leave remain in effect. If you have any questions, I ask that you contact Deputy Chief of Police Troy Cooper directly.

Because of Stonechild’s earlier phone calls, Robin was not surprised by most of the memo. Robin felt the fourth “count” was vague and he noted the part of the memorandum that said if there were additional allegations, he would be notified. Robin doesn’t remember the detail of the conversation, but he does remember that he discussed this memorandum with Ian Reiman.

41

Between January 28 and February 18, 2010 Robin testified that he tried to go to the mayor with his concerns. February 2010 In February 2010, Dave Wade of the PCC asked Staff Sergeant Settee to look into what happened in relation to the subpoena that was to be served on Louis Lukowski. Settee spoke to Sergeant Kellett and the court desk. He confirmed with Kristy Wright at the court desk that the subpoena had been sent to the Melfort RCMP for service. Settee spoke to one of the officers with the Melfort RCMP and confirmed that they had received the subpoena. In the course of his inquiries into the matter, Settee verified that the subpoena had never been served on Lukowski. Settee found nothing to suggest a member of the PA Police Service had stopped the service of the subpoena. February 16, 2010 Robin received a memorandum from Chief McFee as follows:

You are hereby ordered to attend the Police Station at 45, 15th Street West on Thursday, February 18 at 1300 hrs.

You will be met by an investigator from the Public Complaints Commission at that time for the purpose of an administrative interview.

February 18, 2010 Robin attended his first interview with PCC investigator, Dave Wade. They met in an interview room in the PA Police Service office. The police refer to this interview room as the “hard room”. It is called the “hard room” because it is the interview room used to interrogate persons suspected of criminal offences. The room is small and compact. Wade sat close to Robin, according to Robin, “knee to knee”. Robin found the interview to be uncomfortable. Robin attended the interview on his own, without union representation or legal counsel. During this interview, Robin says Wade sprung questions on him about Reiman having phoned the witnesses in the Reimer matter. There were no allegations about this in the original memo Robin received from the chief. Robin felt he was “ambushed” with Reiman’s name. Robin says he only had a moment to think about it and he responded in a way that he felt was most appropriate. At one point Robin said he didn’t know why he responded the way he did. Robin says he didn’t feel it was Wade’s business to ask about Reiman and he was using Reiman as his counsel at the time so he felt what he was doing with Reiman was privileged and confidential and was none of Wade’s business. Because of this, Robin says he didn’t give Wade “complete and accurate information” on all the questions Wade asked. Robin says he did not want to talk to Wade about having gone to the RCMP and about there potentially being administrative interference. This was not one of the “known allegations” that had been listed earlier. Robin feels Wade was “pretty hostile” sometimes during the interview.

42

February 24, 2010 Robin received another memorandum from Chief McFee. That memorandum reads:

You are hereby ordered to attend the Police Station at 45, 15th Street West on Thursday, February 25 at 1300 hrs.

You will be met by an investigator from the Public Complaints Commission at that time for the purpose of a secondary administrative interview.

February 25, 2010 Robin attended a second interview with PCC investigator Wade. This interview was in the same hard room as the first. This time Robin was accompanied by his union representative, Sergeant Jason Stonechild. Neither Stonechild nor Robin objected to any of the questions asked. Robin says in that interview, he “came clean” about the Reiman phone calls, but he “didn’t give him everything obviously.” He says this was for the same reasons he didn’t provide accurate information in the first interview. March 8, 2010 Robin testified that union representative Sergeant Stonechild called him on March 8, 2010. Stonechild told Robin the investigation from the PCC was in and they had substantiated all the allegations. Deputy Chief Cooper had come to Stonechild and told him they planned to fire Robin and they wanted Stonechild to let him know that so Robin had a window of opportunity to resign rather than getting fired. March 12-15, 2010 On about March 12, 2010, Chief McFee received a report dated March 11, 2010 from the PCC. This report included two binders of material. McFee spent the better part of that day and the weekend reviewing and considering the report. On March 15, 2010, he decided to dismiss Constable Robin under Section 60 of The Police Act. McFee said he did not take his decision to terminate Robin lightly. He saw this as basically ending an officer’s career and said that is not something a chief will take lightly. He said in this case he felt it was the only decision available because of the serious concerns that came out of the investigation. Those included:

• McFee considered that Robin going ahead with the prosecution when the Crown had decided not to showed bias. He felt the situation put the police service in a bad light with prosecutions.

• Robin had given confidential witness information to a third person. McFee felt Robin had not been truthful with the PCC investigator in relation to how Ian Reiman got information about the witnesses in the Reimer matter. McFee was concerned because case law now requires disclosure of any past conduct of an officer that might impact their credibility. He felt that Robin’s dishonesty would make him ineffective in future as a police officer.

43

• McFee was concerned about Robin having made criminal allegations against a number of people, including McFee. He felt that was absurd because there was no evidence to suggest anything. This demonstrated to McFee that Robin was unwilling to accept discipline or to accept responsibility. McFee felt Robin’s actions were such that relationships with the other officers were not repairable.

McFee said he considered whether progressive discipline would be appropriate, but he felt “there’s no three lie rule and you’re out.” He felt the matter was serious and it was in the public interest and in the best interest of the police service to terminate Robin. March 16, 2010 McFee signed the Order of Dismissal and directed that it be delivered to Constable Robin. While I have outlined the evidence in considerable detail above, if there is additional evidence relevant to any of the issues I must decide, I will refer to that evidence under specific headings below. IV. Statutory Provisions, Issues and Onus of Proof Chief McFee terminated Constable Robin’s employment with the PA Police Service pursuant to Section 60(2)(b) of the Act which says:

60(1) Where, in the opinion of the chief, a member has:

(b) conducted himself or herself in a manner that, despite remedial efforts, if it was reasonable in the circumstances to make remedial efforts, renders the member unsuitable for police service or establishes the member as incompetent for police service

the chief may, on the grounds of unsuitability or incompetence of the member:

(c) order dismissal of the member; …

Robin brings this appeal pursuant to Section 61: 61(1) Within 30 days after the day on which a member is given notice of a decision of a chief pursuant to section 60, the member may appeal that decision to a hearing officer by submitting a notice of appeal to the office of the commission.

(2) a member is entitled to be represented at a hearing pursuant to subsection (1) by legal counsel or an agent.

(3) At a hearing pursuant to subsection (1), the burden of proof lies with the chief.

(4) Section 56 applies, with any necessary modification, to a hearing conducted pursuant to subsection (1).

Section 93 of the Act says: 93 No finding of:

(a) a contravention of the regulations governing discipline;

(b) unsuitability; or

(c) incompetence;

44

is to be made pursuant to this Act unless the alleged contravention, unsuitability or incompetence is proven on a balance of probabilities.

The parties agree that these statutory provisions require that Chief McFee bears the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that Robin is unsuitable for police service. I have applied that standard to all my findings. On the question of what constitutes “unsuitable” within the meaning of the Act, I note the comments of the hearing officer in The Regina Police Service and Chief Reimer and Daryl Gartner (March 22, 1994) at page 5:

The Act does not define the word “unsuitable”. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 5TH Edition, defines the word “suitable” as follows:

Fit and appropriate for the end in view.

WEST’S LEGAL THESAURUS/DICTIONARY defines the word suitable as follows:

Fit and acceptable for the end in view. See appropriate, fit, proper, admissible, competent, worthy.

We accept the definition in BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY.

It will be noted that Section 60 requires that the Chief of Police arrive at an opinion that a member is unsuitable (no longer fit and appropriate) for police service before the Chief can invoke the balance of the provisions of Section 60. In a decision of this commission in the matter of Vienot v. Regina Police Service dated February 23, 1990, this Commission had occasion to consider the word “unfit” as the same appeared in then Regulation 3.01(12). This Commission commented at Page 9 on the test an adjudicator should adopt in determining the question of “unfitness.” We stated:

The question of unfitness is for the adjudicator to decide. By definition the question of unfitness is a matter of opinion to be arrived at objectively after considering the surrounding factual information…”

We consider the foregoing test to be equally applicable to the wording “unsuitable” as the same appears in Section 60 of the Act. [emphasis added].

This approach has also been adopted by hearing officer Silversides in Panteluk and Chief of Police of the Estevan Police Service (January 20, 1999). In that case, the hearing officer says:

In attempting to determine whether an officer is unsuitable or incompetent to continue as a member of the police service, I am also mindful of the standard of conduct required of a police officer. In Gemmell and Kojima and Vancouver Police Department (B.C. Adj. July 27, 2005), the adjudicator, quoting from a previous decision, stated, at p. 17:

As members of the Force, we are expected to act in an exemplary manner and, at all times, our conduct must be beyond reproach. The Board directs Constable M’s attention to the fact that the nature of our profession, as peace officers, demands that we set ourselves a much higher standard of conduct than what is expected of a member of the general public, and that we are willing to live by a much stricter code of self-discipline. We must be mindful that our everyday actions, both on the job and in private life, are judged by the public in our role as peace officers.

Society expects and deserves a high standard of honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity from its police officers. … A police officer is a person occupying a position of trust, and has a special role and status in the community which confers upon him or her elevated levels of power and authority. A breach of the

45

contract of trust loses society’s confidence, and impairs the ability of our Forces to effectively function within the community.

I must also keep in mind that for a police force to function effectively, its officers must have due regard to police service policy and the chain of command in the police service. Section 63 of the Act gives additional direction to the hearing officer: 63. Where a hearing officer hears an appeal pursuant to section 61, the hearing officer shall consider whether:

(a) the member’s deficiencies were brought to the member’s attention;

(b) the member was given a reasonable opportunity to bring his or her performance up to an acceptable level or standard; and

(c) where it was reasonable to do so, the member was afforded appropriate treatment, training, guidance, coaching or counseling to assist the member in reaching a suitable level or standard of performance.

My powers in relation to the hearing are set out in subsections 65(1) and (2) of the Act:

65(1) With respect to a hearing conducted pursuant to section 61, the hearing officer may, after hearing any representations made by the member and the chief:

(a) dismiss the appeal;

(b) allow the appeal;

(c) vary the decision or order of the chief; or

(d) make any other order that the hearing officer considers appropriate.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (12), where a member has been dismissed, the hearing officer my order that the member be reinstated.

The Order of Dismissal sets out a number of grounds on which Chief McFee relies for his conclusion that Robin is unsuitable for police service. The parties generally agree to this approach:

1. I must first examine the evidence with respect to each of the Chief’s grounds to determine whether Robin engaged in the conduct as alleged and whether the conduct warrants a disciplinary response;

2. Then, in light of the grounds I find to be proven, I must decide whether there was a sufficient basis for Chief McFee to conclude Robin is unsuitable for police service;

3. Depending on the answer to question 2, I may also have to consider the terms on which I might vary the Chief’s decision and whether there is any other order I consider appropriate.

V. Analysis of Grounds General Many of the things Robin did must be viewed in the context of broader events. Because I have concluded this context explains at least some of Robin’s actions,

46

I will discuss it here before turning to the specific grounds in the Order of Dismissal. In June of 2009, when Patrick Robin issued the traffic ticket to Casey Reimer, Robin was in the midst of disciplinary proceedings. The Chief had brought disciplinary charges that were under appeal, the appeal eventually set to be heard in March of 2010. The appeal was never heard because the Chief shut down the appeal when he dismissed Robin. The Chief took the position that since Robin was no longer employed by the Service, the appeal could not be heard. I advised the parties early in this proceeding that in deciding whether dismissal was the appropriate response to the issues before me, I would not allow McFee to rely on any previous discipline charges because the appeal of those charges had never been heard. When McFee dismissed Robin on March 16, 2010, Robin had a clean disciplinary record. The existence of those earlier disciplinary charges, however, cannot be ignored because those charges were in the minds of Robin and his superiors as events unfolded. Casey Reimer’s complaint to the PA Police Service on June 16, 2009 involved allegations of rude conduct on the part of Constable Robin. Evidence before me suggests that the existing disciplinary charges involved allegations of similar conduct. For example, the Georgeson E-mail includes the statement that, “This is somewhat alarming as the concerns are consistent with his past ongoing public complaints.” Robin disagreed with his superiors about his conduct. He was adamant that the Reimer Ticket was a good ticket in the sense that the ticket was warranted by the information from the witnesses. There are several indications throughout the evidence that Robin was unable or unwilling to accept that his superiors were not concerned with the fact he had issued a traffic ticket to Reimer, but rather how he behaved towards Reimer and Brooks. Robin was unable to distinguish between his own behavior and the circumstances that lead to the Reimer Ticket. In Robin’s mind, if the Reimer Ticket was a good ticket, then Reimer’s complaint about how Robin behaved was not justified. For example, Robin testified that he believed he was put with a coaching officer in July 2009 because he had issued the Reimer Ticket. He also said he believed he was transferred to traffic division in September 2009 because of the Reimer Ticket. Robin has protested throughout that his motivation in pursuing the Reimer prosecution with such vigor was his firm belief that he had written a good ticket and the “good soccer people” of Prince Albert deserved their day in court. I am satisfied, however, and I have concluded on a balance of probabilities, that Robin’s actions leading to his decision to personally prosecute the Reimer Ticket were largely motivated by his belief that a conviction on the traffic violation would prove to his superiors that the Reimer Ticket was a good ticket and that Reimer had no reason to complain against Robin. Conversely, if the prosecution didn’t proceed or didn’t result in a conviction, Robin was fearful his superiors would accuse him of writing a bad ticket.

47

This does not justify Robin’s actions, but it does help to explain his behavior. Robin, influenced by Ian Reiman, convinced himself that justice required the Reimer case be prosecuted. As I will discuss under some of the specific grounds, Robin sometimes acted unreasonably. With little exception, I generally found the witnesses to be credible and reasonably reliable. However:

• In his testimony in chief and especially in cross-examination, when Robin wanted to avoid detail he thought might get him into trouble, he said things like “and stuff” or “that’s how I articulated it” to try to gloss over. Robin had very specific recollection of certain events and then would be unable to remember the specifics of other events one would expect him to remember, like the conversation when Sergeant Kellett asked him if he had talked to Joe Kulyk. I believe Robin tried to be truthful during the hearing, but found himself lapsing into defensive postures at times. This affects his credibility. There are also inconsistencies in Robin’s evidence. One example is in relation to his testimony at the hearing that on June 15, 2009, when he took the initial call from Casey Reimer, during that call Reimer told Robin to “fuck off”. In the PCC interview, Robin said three times that he didn’t recall Reimer telling him to “fuck off”. At one point he even said if he had remembered hearing Reimer say that, he would have documented it. At the hearing Robin said he had just remembered Reimer’s comment later. Robin’s credibility is also adversely affected by the way he handled the PCC investigator’s questions about Reiman’s phone calls to the witnesses. I will say more about this later in this decision.

• While Chief McFee generally appeared to be honest and forthright, I am satisfied, in spite of what he said at the hearing, that when McFee decided to issue the Order of Dismissal, one of the factors he considered in deciding dismissal was in order was Robin’s past disciplinary issues. If he was not considering the past events, he should not have referred to them in the Order of Dismissal. I will also return to this issue later in this decision.

• There is no question that, even though he has been retired for more than five years, Ian Reiman is a man with an axe to grind with the PA Police Service. Reiman’s particular dislike for Chief McFee was apparent as he testified. Reiman found in Robin a willing pawn to help him pursue his outstanding issues with the PA Police Service. Reiman was not a credible witness, especially because much of his evidence was conjecture and hearsay.

Lastly, while there is little dispute about most of the relevant events, it is often in the characterization of the events that the parties differ. I will now turn to the specific grounds in the Order of Dismissal.

48

Ground 1 1. There is clear and convincing evidence which satisfies me on a

balance of probabilities that in late December, 2009 or early January, 2010 you did, without authorization, improperly disclose confidential Prince Albert Police Service information to members of the public, contrary to s. 36(d) of The Municipal Police Discipline Regulations. You have acknowledged providing witness statements and police file material to retired member Ian Reiman. You have also acknowledged providing a confidential memorandum from Crown Prosecutor Joseph Kulyk to the witness Mike Parenteau. These disclosures were in direct violation of written policy of the Prince Albert Police Service which provides that police information, in whatever form, must not be divulged in any way to unauthorized persons or agencies.

Section 36(d) of the The Municipal Police Discipline Regulations 1991 (the “Regulations”) reads:

36. A member of a police service commits a major offence against discipline if he or she is guilty of:

…

(d) improper disclosure of information, that is if he or she, without proper authority, communicates to any person any information which he or she has acquired as a member of the police service;

…

PA Police Service policy in Chapter G, Control of Information, makes it clear that police information must not be divulged to unauthorized persons and alerts officers that unauthorized release of information constitutes discreditable conduct. The definition of “records” includes all records obtained by a PA Police Service member during the course of their duties and includes any information in any form, including all correspondence and memoranda received by any person employed by the PA Police Service. There are two allegations of improper disclosure of information, one in relation to disclosure of the Kulyk Memorandum and the other in relation to disclosure of telephone numbers and other information to Ian Reiman. I will deal with each in turn. The Kulyk Memorandum – There is no question the Kulyk Memorandum was a record belonging to the PA Police Service. It was a memorandum prepared by Kulyk and sent to Robin in his capacity as the officer who wrote the Reimer Ticket. It was a record obtained by Robin in the course of his duties. It was also a privileged document because it was a communication from the prosecutor. As such, this record should not have been disclosed to anyone without authorization from someone in authority at the PA Police Service.

49

Robin acknowledges giving a copy of the Kulyk Memorandum to Mike Parenteau. Robin argues, however, that:

• He didn’t perceive the Kulyk Memorandum to be confidential. He says there is nothing in the memorandum to indicate it is protected or confidential or sensitive. His counsel says the information in the memorandum is the kind of information that is regularly disclosed to victims of crime. It is not inappropriate for an officer to advise someone why the prosecutor is not proceeding with a case.

• He didn’t feel this memorandum was in the same category as Crown memoranda involving investigations.

• Robin believed Kulyk gave him permission to provide the memorandum to the witnesses or at least that when Kulyk said, “Do what you want,” that Kulyk indicated he didn’t care one way or the other what Robin did.

• Robin felt the witnesses had the right to know the case wasn’t going ahead and that they be given a chance to contact the prosecutor to discuss the matter.

• Kulyk testified he wasn’t concerned about this particular information being provided to the witnesses.

Robin’s decision to provide a copy of the Kulyk Memorandum to Mike Parenteau must be viewed in the context I have described above. For Robin, if the Reimer Ticket didn’t get prosecuted, then someone could accuse him of not being justified in issuing the ticket. He was at odds with his superiors and in his mind this would just add to the problems. I do not believe Robin when he says he didn’t think the Kulyk memorandum was confidential. He had been a police officer for many years at this point. Even if he felt the witnesses had a right to know the prosecutor didn’t intend to go ahead with the case, he could have told them that without handing out a copy of the Kulyk Memorandum. Robin should not have given Parenteau a copy of the memorandum. The fact that after the fact Kulyk, the prosecutor, said he wasn’t concerned about the information being shared is irrelevant. At the point Robin shared the document, it was a confidential PA Police Service document and should not have been given to others. As to the evidence on what occurred during the December 14 meeting in Kulyk’s office, I am satisfied that there was a rather heated exchange between Robin and Kulyk at the end of which Robin said he was going to give copies of the memorandum to the witnesses. I am satisfied that Kulyk’s reply was, “Do what you want.” I am satisfied that a reasonable person would not have taken Kulyk’s words or tone as permission to hand out the memorandum, but rather as Kulyk acknowledging he could see Robin was going to do what he wanted. In any event, because the Kulyk Memorandum was a PA Police Service record, the decision to release the record to the public would have been a PA Police Service decision, not Kulyk’s decision.

50

Disclosure to Reiman - Robin’s counsel submits:

• The role Reiman played in relation to Robin was that of adviser or agent under the Act. Reiman checked the section in the Act and determined he was authorized to act as Robin’s agent in the discipline matters Robin was facing. Because Reiman was Robin’s agent, Robin was entitled to share information with his adviser in order to get advice. Disclosure to counsel or an agent is permissible for the purpose of representation. Counsel says the disclosure of material and phone numbers from the Reimer Ticket prosecution file was for the purpose of Robin’s defence.

McFee’s counsel submits:

• At the time Robin released much of the information about the witnesses to Reiman, there was no pending discipline proceeding involving the Reimer matter. Robin wasn’t even aware there was going to be an investigation until January 14, 2010. Robin acknowledges disclosing information to Reiman well before that date. Robin testified that he discussed the Reimer Ticket matter with Reiman even before the January 5 trial. Robin may have released the telephone numbers after the Chief placed him on administrative leave, but at this point the matter was still only under investigation. There were no disciplinary proceedings.

Robin testified that he could not be specific about what he shared with Ian Reiman. He said that’s why he eventually told PCC investigator Wade that Reiman was privy to everything, i.e. because he couldn’t identify each thing he had shared. Robin acknowledged that there were multiple occasions on which he shared information with Reiman. He shared information during phone calls, personal conversations and e-mail communications. Robin does not recall giving Reiman hard copies of the summary offence ticket or the witness statements, although he thinks he might have e-mailed copies to Reiman. Leaving aside later events after Robin was placed on administrative leave (which events I will deal with under Ground 4(c)), it is clear from the evidence that during December 2009 and early January 2010, Robin shared information from the Reimer file with Ian Reiman. At this time, before Robin actually prosecuted the Reimer Ticket, there were no discipline proceedings pending against Robin in relation to the Reimer matter. The discipline proceedings on which Robin was getting advice from Reiman were in relation to previous events. During this time period, disclosure could not have been for purposes of Robin’s defence on the disciplinary matters because those matters were totally unrelated to the Reimer Ticket prosecution. Instead of getting advice from his superiors about the Reimer prosecution, Robin chose to go to a member of the public and to share with that member of the public confidential information and documents from the PA Police Service file. It was inappropriate for Robin to do this. There are, therefore, two instances of improper disclosure of information.

51

Ground Two 2. There is clear and convincing evidence which satisfies me on a

balance of probabilities that in late December, 2009 or early January, 2010 you were willfully insubordinate by word or action, contrary to 37(b) of The Municipal Police Discipline Regulations, by arranging to have a subpoena issued to yourself to attend court on January 5, 2010 to prosecute a traffic ticket offence without informing your supervisor or obtaining approval to do so. You did so despite knowing that you were not required as a witness in the matter.

Section 37(b) of the Regulations reads: 37. A member of a police force commits a minor offence against discipline if he or she is guilty:

…

(b) insubordination, that is if he or she is insubordinate by word or action;

…

McFee’s counsel submits:

• Robin was not a necessary witness for the Reimer trial because there was not supposed to be a trial in the first place. Kulyk had decided not to proceed and that should have been the end of the matter.

Robin’s counsel submits:

• The person tasked in the first instance to determine who to put on the witness list for subpoenas is the officer in charge of the case. It is not unusual for an officer to include himself on the witness list.

• Because the prosecution was going ahead, Robin needed to put himself on the witness list because he was a necessary witness. He needed to subpoena himself, so he did nothing wrong in getting the subpoena issued.

Robin maintains he was a necessary witness because he could testify about service of the ticket and the identity of Casey Reimer. He says he could also have testified about the damage to Reimer’s vehicle. Robin told PCC investigator Wade (page 1370 hearing transcript, page 9 interview transcript) that he requested the subpoena on the basis that he could provide evidence on service, on identity of the subject and on the so-called damage to his motor vehicle. Robin then said:

Um and I also, and as well as to um you know to attend there and prosecute the matter so, but that’s two fold.

At the hearing Robin testified that normally he did not have to notify a supervisor if he was subpoenaed to attend court. He says he could have put his name on the Trial Notification right from the start. He says he makes the decision on whether he will be issued a subpoena and he sends the paperwork through. He suggested that no superior was involved. This, however, is not the case.

52

Cooper testified that when someone pleads not guilty, the officer submits the Trial Notification with the witness list to the supervisor. The supervisor reviews the Trial Notification, including the witness list before approving it by sending it on to the clerks to have the subpoenas issued. During the PCC interview, Robin confirmed that he knew the process for subpoenas was that he filled out the witness list on the Trial Notification and then the document went through the supervisors to the court desk. When Robin added his name to the witness list in December, he did not send the Trial Notification back through the supervisor. He went straight to the court desk to get the subpoena prepared. If Robin had thought he was a necessary witness when he prepared the Trial Notification in August 2009, he would have included himself on the witness list at that time. While Robin now claims he was a necessary witness, on an objective basis, it would have been unlikely he would be required as a witness. When he prosecuted the case, he did not testify. Robin knew the prosecutor had decided not to proceed with the case. In Robin’s mind, he needed this prosecution to go forward. He admitted to the PCC investigator that one of his reasons for the subpoena was so he could go and prosecute the case. I have concluded that was Robin’s primary reason for getting the subpoena. This conclusion is reinforced by the way Robin completed his overtime claim. On the claim, he didn’t say he was prosecuting the case, he wrote that the overtime was “Detailed by: subpoena” and “Verified by NCO i/c: subpoena”. He noted the matter had been adjourned for the defendant to get a lawyer and that the Crown’s case was completed. There is nothing on the overtime claim form to reveal that Robin prosecute the case. At the point Robin added himself to the witness list and obtained the subpoena, the Crown had already decided not to proceed with the charge. The subpoena was issued December 31, 2009 at a time when Robin had embarked on the unauthorized activity of prosecuting the case himself. While Robin says he didn’t make the final decision to prosecute the case until January 4, 2010, I am satisfied that as early as December 14, 2010 when Kulyk told him the case was not going ahead, Robin already intended to prosecuted the matter himself if he couldn’t get Kulyk to do it. Robin had more than three years experience with the PA Police Service at the time. I am satisfied Robin was well aware of the way in which prosecutions were handled. I am satisfied that in Robin’s mind, he thought he could justify his attendance in court that day if he had a subpoena directing him to attend. In usual practice, an officer who was subpoenaed didn’t need authorization to attend court because the law required him to do so. If Robin had a subpoena compelling him to attend court, there was then no need for him to go to his sergeant or the NCO in advance to request overtime approval to prosecute the case which was scheduled on a day Robin was not scheduled to work. In practice the NCO or prosecutor signed approval on the “Verified by” section of the form. Robin tried to avoid the need for this signature by writing “subpoena”

53

where the signature would normally go. As with other things Robin did or failed to do, I am satisfied Robin did not seek prior approval for overtime to prosecute the Reimer Ticket because he didn’t want to be told “no”. Whether one characterizes the failure to obtain overtime approval as insubordination under regulation 37(b) or as unbecoming conduct under regulation 36(a)(v), Robin’s behavior was not appropriate. Ground Three

3. There is clear and convincing evidence which satisfies me on a balance of probabilities that on January 5, 2010 you were willfully insubordinate by word or action, contrary to 37(b) of The Municipal Police Discipline Regulations by willfully failing to obtain authorization to perform overtime duty regarding the prosecution of the above mentioned traffic ticket offence, and by submitting a claim for overtime pay knowing that it had not been authorized.

Robin’s counsel submits:

• Because Robin believed he was authorized to prosecute the Reimer Ticket, he did nothing wrong in submitting an overtime claim. He did not try to conceal the fact he had prosecuted the matter. He was open and put in the overtime claim. That is how the administration became aware he had prosecuted the ticket.

• If Robin was authorized to undertake the prosecution, then the overtime is authorized. If Robin was not authorized to undertake the prosecution, then the only consequence should be denial of the overtime. When asked Robin fully explained to Sergeant Kellett what he was doing that required the overtime.

Robin testified that with subpoenas to court, the officer submits the overtime claim for approval after he has testified. He did what was expected of him in this regard and submitted the claim on the same day he testified. He says there was nothing false in the overtime claim. I have already concluded under Ground 2 above that Robin’s intention in having a subpoena issued was to make sure he was compelled to be in court on January 5, 2010 so he could prosecute the Reimer Ticket. In Robin’s mind, a subpoena made it unnecessary to obtain permission for overtime in advance because if an officer was subpoenaed he did not need advance overtime approval. If Robin wasn’t subpoenaed, then he would have had to ask for permission to work the overtime. Robin knew he didn’t have permission to prosecute. On all the evidence, the logical inference is that Robin knew if he asked for permission to prosecute, he would not likely receive it. He avoided the “no” answer by not asking for approval. Again, whether one characterizes the failure to obtain overtime approval as insubordination under regulation 37(b) or as unbecoming conduct under regulation 36(a)(v), Robin’s behavior was not appropriate.

54

Ground Four 4. There is clear and convincing evidence which satisfies me on a

balance of probabilities that you have committed the major offence of discreditable conduct pursuant to s. 36(a) in the following respects:

The relevant portion of regulation 36(a) reads: 36. A member of a police service commits a major offence against discipline if he or she is guilty of:

…

(ii) willfully makes a false, misleading or inaccurate oral or written statement or entry an any official document or record;

…

(v) acts in a manner that is unbecoming or dishonourable to the member or to the police service;

…

Ground 4(a) a. you willfully misled your immediate supervisor, Sgt. Kellett,

respecting your conversation with senior Crown Prosecutor Joseph Kulyk, when Sgt. Kellett asked you whether you had talked to him regarding the above mentioned traffic ticket offence. You had, in fact, discussed the matter with Mr. Kulyk, and had been informed that the Crown would not prosecute the ticket further. You deliberately withheld that information from Sgt. Kellett, and deliberately failed to inform him of your intention to prosecute the ticket yourself;

Robin’s counsel submits:

• Robin claims he would never mislead a supervisor. He did not keep secrets from Sergeant Kellett. They had a good working relationship.

• In his evidence, Kellett was “fuzzy” on dates. He was not able to pin down the precise date of the conversation with Robin.

• Robin did not keep the fact he disagreed with Kulyk a secret. He talked to a couple of other officers and it would have been within his style that if he had an opportunity he would have discussed it with Kellett. Looking at their respective schedules, Robin would have had little opportunity to discuss the matter with Kellett.

Kellett testified that on December 7 or 8, 2009, he and Robin opened the Kulyk Memorandum in the work flow and reviewed it together. Kellett suggested if Robin had more facts, he get those facts and take them to the prosecutor. Robin says he has a vague recollection of Kellett coming in when Robin and another constable were looking at the work flow. Robin says he doesn’t remember what, if anything, Kellett said. Kellett testified that a week to a week and a half later he

55

asked Robin if he had reached the prosecutor and Robin said he had left a phone message. Robin says he does not recall any such discussion with Kellett. I accept Kellett’s evidence with respect to these events. I do not accept that Robin has no memory of the discussions with Kellett. The testimony and documents verify that both Kellett and Robin were working on December 7 and 8, 2009 when their first conversation about the Kulyk Memorandum took place. Kellett testified that a week to a week and a half later, he asked Robin if he had talked to Kulyk. Because of their respective schedules, this conversation had to take place on December 16 or 17 when they were both working. Robin went to see Kulyk on December 14, 2009. The logical inference from all the evidence is that Robin had already been to see Kulyk when Kellett asked him if he had reached the prosecutor. Kellett and Robin worked the same shift on December 30, 2009. Robin never said anything to Kellett that day about what he was doing in relation to the Reimer prosecution. Kellett had asked Robin earlier if he had reached the prosecutor. Robin should have known that Kellett was interested in what was going on, but Robin chose not to let Kellett know about his meeting with Kulyk or about his intention to prosecute if Kulyk would not. Even if Robin had not yet spoken to Kulyk when Kellett asked him if he had, this should have signaled to Robin that his sergeant was interested in knowing the outcome of any discussion with Kulyk. When Robin did talk to Kulyk, he never went back to his sergeant to let him know what had happened. He had ample opportunity on December 16 and 17 and on December 30. Robin chose not to inform his sergeant what had happened. Instead, he contacted witnesses, arranged for a subpoena for himself for the court date, and set about plans to prosecute the Reimer Ticket all the while getting advice from Reiman instead of his superiors. Robin says he had no intention of keeping his activities in relation to the Reimer matter from Kellett. If he wasn’t keeping the matter from Kellett, then why, instead of going to Kellett with questions about process and policy, did he go to Ian Reiman? Robin suggests there wasn’t much opportunity to talk to Kellett. He points to the small number of days they worked overlapping shifts. This is simply no excuse. Robin could have talked to Kellett on any day they worked together and he could have talked to the NCO in charge on any other day. Robin worked several days during the relevant time period and would have had ample opportunity to talk to someone. I have concluded Robin didn’t tell anyone in authority what he was doing on the Reimer case because he didn’t want to be told to stop. Whether one characterizes Robin’s behavior in this regard as a misleading statement under regulation 36(a)(ii) or as unbecoming conduct under regulation 36(a)(v), Robin’s behavior was not appropriate.

56

Ground 4(b) b. you did not disclose to the civilian witnesses who attended court

with respect to the above mentioned ticket that you did not have the authorization of the Prince Albert Police Service to prosecute the offence;

Robin’s counsel submits:

• Robin felt he had authorization from the PA Police Service to prosecute the Reimer Ticket because as a police officer it was within his job description to do something like that. He had prosecuted many times in British Columbia when he was with the RCMP.

• Because Robin believed he was authorized, there was no reason for him to tell the witnesses he did not have authorization. He thought he was authorized.

Robin testified he felt he was legally authorized to prosecute the traffic ticket. He says he made it clear to the witnesses that Kulyk wasn’t interested in prosecuting the case and that he would do it for them. He says he would not have proceeded with the case if he didn’t think he was authorized. Robin goes on to say that Ian Reiman said he had prosecuted tickets in the past. Robin told the PCC investigator that he had heard of other police officers prosecuting traffic tickets numerous times. In cross-examination, Robin said, “I don’t remember the number that he specifically gave me but – Well, I think I believe he did give me kind of a number at one point in time or something.” And then the following exchange occurred:

Q. Okay. So he did tell you how many times.

A. Well, I – again, I don’t know an exact number he’s giving me. That’s what I’m saying. That’s how I articulated it [to PCC Investigator Wade].

Robin finally said the information he used to support his statement to PCC investigator Wade that tickets like the Reimer Ticket had been prosecuted numerous times was, “Well, Mr. Reiman told me he did so and he’s known of other members that prosecuted.” Robin’s justification for thinking he was authorized to prosecute the Reimer Ticket does not hold up under scrutiny. After three years with the PA Police Service, Robin was well aware that the PA Police Service did not prosecute traffic tickets. They sent them to the Crown prosecutor’s office. Robin’s recounting of Reiman’s advice to Robin is exceedingly vague. I will discuss this more below. Suffice it to say here that I am satisfied Robin knew he didn’t have authorization from his superiors to prosecute the Reimer case. In his mind at the time Robin convinced himself that because as a peace officer he had the legal capacity to prosecute, that was sufficient in terms of authority. He shored up his justification for prosecuting by accepting Reiman’s anecdotes about others prosecuting cases as more proof that he was entitled to prosecute the case. This was even though not one of Reiman’s stories about other officers prosecuting

57

cases involved a situation where an officer went head when the prosecutor had decided not to prosecute the case. Robin’s failure to tell the civilians he had not obtained authorization from the PA Police Service to prosecute the ticket is part of an overall course of conduct in which he engaged in relation to the prosecution of the Reimer Ticket. It is part of unbecoming conduct on Robin’s part. Ground 4(c)

c. your actions in consulting with and disclosing confidential Prince Albert Police Service information to Ian Reiman led to Mr. Reiman making anonymous telephone calls to three civilians to pressure these civilians to intervene with the mayor’s office on your behalf;

Robin’s counsel submits:

• McFee’s order to Robin directing him not to contact the witnesses in the Reimer matter did not say anything about indirect contact.

• Reiman was acting as Robin’s agent when he contacted the witnesses. Robin agreed to Reiman contacting the witnesses to inform them the charges had been withdrawn and that they should complain about this because Robin was taking a lot of heat over it. Robin felt the witnesses had a right to know. He gave Reiman their contact information. The Reimer Ticket had been withdrawn, so there were no charges left. Therefore, counsel asserts, Robin was not in breach of the Chief’s order by having Reiman contact the witnesses. Furthermore, he says, contacting the witnesses was the appropriate thing to do.

• Reiman should not have contacted the witnesses anonymously. Reiman said it was his idea to contact the witnesses anonymously, not Robin’s. Robin was very upset when he found out Reiman had contacted the witnesses. Because Reiman went ahead on his own and contacted the witnesses anonymously, Robin is not responsible for what Reiman did.

• The fact the people were contacted, however, is authorized by The Police Act because Reiman was Robin’s agent with respect to the fact there was a PCC investigation into Robin’s conduct.

McFee’s counsel submits:

• Robin and his counsel insist that Reiman was acting as Robin’s agent throughout, but then they want to draw the line when Reiman made the anonymous phone calls. If Reiman was vested with authority to act as Robin’s agent, then Reiman was acting as Robin’s agent when Reiman made the calls. Robin cannot now distance himself from the consequences of the content of those phone calls.

Robin testified that he used Ian Reiman as his counsel and he thought disclosure of information to Reiman was permissible. He says he gave Reiman the

58

information as his agent. He claims the idea to call the witnesses was Reiman’s and the idea to call them anonymously was Reiman’s. Reiman did that all on his own. As with other issues, Robin has many reasons for his behavior. He says he and Reiman thought that since the court matter was withdrawn, it was over with, so there was no problem contacting the witnesses. Robin also said he and Reiman had discussed that paragraph of the Chief’s memorandum and felt it was an abuse of authority. I find these to be attempts to justify after the fact. Robin knew from McFee’s January 14, 2010 memo that he was not to have further contact with the witnesses in the Reimer matter. Robin acknowledged giving the phone numbers to Reiman. He acknowledged that he was wrong in doing so. He acknowledged that at the time he gave Reiman the numbers, while he wasn’t sure of precisely what Reiman would say to them, he knew that Reiman was planning to call the witnesses. This conduct was not appropriate and was conduct unbecoming a police officer. Ground 4(d)

d. you willfully misled the investigator from the Public Complaints Commission by initially denying that you had shared confidential Police Service information with Mr. Reiman;

Robin’s counsel submits:

• Robin’s misleading PCC investigator Wade about Reiman’s involvement can be explained because Robin was caught off guard when Wade raised the issue. There were no allegations about Reiman in the January 28, 2010 memo from the Chief. Therefore, Wade asking Robin about Reiman was an “ambush”.

• Robin was being asked about a confidential matter that he wasn’t obligated to disclose. Robin should not have been questioned about Reiman and Robin should have declined to answer questions about Reiman because Reiman was his agent.

• When Robin responded to Wade and mislead him, it was a “quick error in judgment”. Robin should have objected. Instead of objecting, Robin “deflected”, but ultimately he did “come clean” in the second interview.

• Robin was in a difficult spot because he had been told to answer all questions. He didn’t even realize at the time that he could object.

• The PA Police Service should have followed their discipline policy in relation to this matter and should have notified Robin ahead of time that Reiman’s actions were going to be brought up.

• I should take into account the manner in which PCC investigator Wade conducted the interviews, in particular such factors as the “hard room” room in which the interview took place, how close Robin had to sit to

59

Wade, the fact the interview was being recorded and video-taped, and Wade’s manner of interrogation.

McFee’s counsel submits:

• Robin’s counsel describes Robin’s responses to PCC investigator Wade as “deflecting”. Robin did not deflect. He lied. He said he didn’t know why Reiman had called the witnesses. He denied having a discussion with Reiman about phoning the witnesses. Robin denied knowing that Reiman had called the witnesses. He denied providing Reiman with phone number information from the witness list.

• Even in the second administrative statement, Robin did not “come clean” and tell Wade the full extent of Reiman’s involvement. He did not tell Wade that he and Reiman had discussed Reiman phoning the witnesses on Robin’s behalf. He did not tell the investigator he had sent the phone numbers to Reiman by e-mail.

• The PCC handled the investigation. A PCC investigator is not bound by the internal policies of the PA Police Service.

• If Wade engaged in aggressive questioning of Robin, it most often arose in the context of Robin “deflecting”.

At the outset of the February 18, 2010 interview, Wade made it clear to Robin that he had to answer all the questions fully and truthfully and that failure to do so could lead to discipline. Robin seeks to justify his denial that he shared information with Reiman by saying he hadn’t been made aware of this allegation before the questions were asked. He says if he had been given an “amended charge” that included the allegation that he shared confidential information, then he would have commented fairly and openly about it. He says he would have been able to prepare himself properly. He says PA Police Service Policy required that he be given the allegations involving Reiman ahead of time. He also makes the point that he wasn’t under oath at the time. The fact Robin was not under oath at the time is not an excuse for lying. As for PA Police Service policy, the Service does have a detailed discipline policy. Had the interview been conducted under PA Police Service policy, the Service would have been required to adhere to its policy. In this case, however, the investigation of Robin’s conduct was taken out of the Chief’s hands. The PCC took over the investigation. Under section 45(6) of the Act, once the PCC took over the investigation, the PA Police Service ceased to have responsibility for and control of the investigation. There is nothing in the Act that binds the PCC to PA Police Service Policy. The PCC investigation was in relation to Robin’s prosecution of the Reimer Ticket and events related to that matter. There was nothing wrong with the investigator asking Robin questions about Reiman’s calls to the witnesses.

60

I turn now to what occurred at the PCC interviews. In Robin’s first PCC interview, the following exchange took place:

Wade: Why did Ian Reiman call Parenteau, Moniuk and Lukowski on your behalf?

Robin: I don’t know

Wade: I mean you know Reiman. Did you guys have discussion about it that he said, “I’ll phone these people and rally them to your support?”

Robin: Nope. No, not at all. Um me and Ian go back way back in our baseball days, softball days and stuff and um so I’ve known him for 15 or 20 years or something but uh yeah I, that’s a good question. It’s something that maybe um you know witnesses can explain or something but I never directed anyone to call these people.

Wade: You knew he called them though.

Robin: uh nope, no he um, again, I didn’t directly nobody to, to call these people.

Wade: Right. Uh that’s not the question. You knew he called them.

Robin: No. how did I know he called them?

Wade: I’m just asking.

Robin: Nope.

Wade: You have no knowledge that he called them.

Robin: No I, I never -- I mentioned their names to him if that’s, that’s what you want to know and stuff but that’s just –

Wade: Oh okay well you mentioned their names to him uh fine. Uh did you give him their phone numbers? ‘Cause the one fellow who was called, I mean the only place that he has his phone number is on that witness list there.

Robin: No I uh uh – I you know from curiosity I checked the phone book and all the phone numbers are there.

…

Wade: Okay did you, did you provide this information from from this from list to Mr. Reiman?

Robin: No.

Wade: Did he have access to them at any time when it was in your possession?

Robin: Uh I don’t believe so. I’ve never give him copies of, of that.

Wade: Okay. Would he have had access to it over at your house? Maybe he happened to see it?

Robin: I don’t think so – um – I showed him other documents and stuff but uh, I, I believe the answer is no though.

…

Wade: You know – did you know he was going to phone these people on your behalf?

Robin: No.

Wade: When did you know that he had phoned these people on your behalf?

Robin: I never did say I knew. [inaudible]

Wade: [inaudible]

Robin: I said that the answer is no.

61

…

Wade: …was this something you knew about? Did you ask him to do it?

Robin: No. [underlining added]

During the second PCC interview, Wade came back to the question of the calls to the witnesses. Twice Robin said he misplaced his file after the January 5 trial date and he looked up the names of the witnesses in the phone book for “curiosity”. He never explained what he meant by that. In the second interview Robin said he had given Reiman pretty much everything he had including the statements with the contact information on them. He said he gave confidential information to Reiman because Reiman was a friend in whom he could confide. Then:

Wade: Did you ask him to make those phone calls to the witnesses?

Robin: Nope.

And later: Wade: …Mr. Parenteau’s personal cell phone number is listed on that statement form?

Robin: Yeah.

Wade: That’s where he [Reiman] would have gotten that, that personal cell phone number from?

Robin: Well, I don’t know, um, um I’ve given him information over time and I don’t know how that one played out and stuff, but yeah his cell phone’s on that statement. [underlining added]

At the hearing, Robin admitted to “deflecting” when Wade asked him questions about what information he had shared with Ian Reiman. He maintained that this was an “out of scope allegation” so he wasn’t prepared to talk about it. He said he didn’t just say he wasn’t prepared to talk about it because it was sprung on him “just like that out of the blue, I have a second to think about it , and those are the words that came out of me – my mouth. I don’t know.” During cross-examination, Robin finally admitted that he had not been truthful with the PCC investigator about his involvement in Ian Reiman making the phone calls to the witnesses. He continued to try to explain his behavior with the PCC Investigator by saying it was because the matter was sprung on him and because he thought it was confidential and because he wasn’t perceiving what he said to be untruthful. Robin also said this:

Well, I was considering it pro – protected confidential information that I was receiving through my agent expressed through The Police Act and stuff, and I treated him as my counsel, advocate and advisor, and I clearly stated that in the interrogations, and I didn’t believe it was any of Mr. Wade’s business. He should have notified me accordingly.

62

There is no question Robin lied about a number of things. In the passages quoted above I have underlined several of Robin’s answers where he was untruthful, false or misleading. This was not a momentary lapse for one question, but a deliberate attempt to cover up the fact Robin had provided contact information from the file to Reiman and had participated in discussions about Reiman contacting the witnesses on Robin’s behalf. If Robin felt the allegation was new or if he thought the communications Wade was asking Robin to discuss were protected by some sort of privilege, the logical response would have been to decline to answer on one of those grounds and/or to ask to consult counsel, not to lie about the events. Robin chose not to have legal counsel with him at the interview. Lastly on this point, I note that I saw nothing inappropriate about the way in which Wade conducted the interviews. In any event, Wade’s interview techniques are no justification for Robin lying about Reiman’s involvement. Whether one characterizes Robin’s behavior in this regard as false and misleading statements under regulation 36(a)(ii) or as unbecoming conduct under regulation 36(a)(v), Robin’s behavior was not appropriate. Ground 4(e)

e. you willfully placed yourself in a conflict of interest by personally prosecuting a traffic ticket offence against Casey Reimer, knowing that the said Casey Reimer had complained to the Prince Albert Police Service respecting your conduct;

Robin’s counsel submits:

• Robin testified that his prosecution of the Reimer Ticket had nothing to do with the fact Reimer had complained about him. Therefore, there was no actual bias. The case had nothing to do with animosity towards Casey Reimer. Robin was upset, not with Reimer, but with administration because of the way the Reimer complaint was handled.

• There may have been a perception of bias or conflict of interest because Robin was prosecuting a ticket against a person who had complained against him. Justice, however, “was between a rock and a hard place”. “Constable Robin was between a rock and a hard place.” If he went along with Kulyk, the Reimer Ticket would have been gone. Reimer’s display of “road rage would have been swept under the carpet”. Reimer would never have had to face anything and that was more upsetting to the perception of justice in the public’s eyes than any perceived conflict of interest. Someone like Casey Reimer should not get a “free pass for his road rage”. Robin felt he had to proceed. The perception of justice was better served by what Robin did rather than giving Reimer a break.

• Casey Reimer was entitled to contest his ticket and to expect the police wouldn’t be tainted by a perception of bias, but that got sacrificed for the greater good.

63

McFee’s counsel submits:

• Robin’s counsel is essentially suggesting “the ends justify the means”, that a conflict of interest is acceptable if the witnesses strongly wanted the ticket to proceed.

In the general comments in the PA Police Service Policy Manual under Charging and Enforcement, the policy provides that, “Laws will be enforced consistently, with fairness and good judgment, and without fear or favor.” During his testimony, Robin said he disagreed that he had placed himself in a conflict of interest. In cross-examination, Robin confirmed that he didn’t think he was in a conflict of interest in prosecuting Casey Reimer:

Q. Okay. Do you not believe that there could be – could have been an appearance of bias or conflict of interest in personally taking over the prosecution?

A. Not at all.

Robin acknowledged that he made the decision to prosecute the case even though he knew Reimer had come to the police station and complained about his conduct. Robin was unable to appreciate that a reasonable person viewing his actions might conclude he was biased or in a position of conflict of interest because, when the Crown had decided not to prosecute, Robin chose to take over a prosecution against someone who had complained against him. Robin says he felt he was providing quality service to citizens who wanted their day in court. He said he had good faith intentions because of how important the community is to policing.

Q. …My question was do – do you believe that justice was seen to be done when you undertook to prosecute Mr. Reimer against the wishes of the Crown prosecutor in a situation where Mr. Reimer had filed a public concern about your behavior?

A. I didn’t view it as that, if that’s – if that’s an answer.

During the first PCC interview, the following exchange occurred: Wade: …Did you not see that you could be perceived by people looking at this whole thing as being in a conflict of interest situation uh prosecuting somebody who had made a complaint about you and you were the one that actually issued the ticket?

Robin: No, not at all. I think it was a frivolous um complaint. Um part of the police officer’s job, and I’m finding it tough to suck up here, is we, we sometimes have to ticket people, we sometimes have to charge people. In return they’re fighting back and complaining about the tickets and, and um whether they’re being charged. It’s not a s-s-s-substantiated complaint. They have to have some basis to it and um that troubles me. That hurts me. Never, never once have I even had to deal with this kind of stuff in BC whether I ticketed the wrong person or just somebody knows somebody or, or they’re upset ‘cause they got a ticket and that they can complain and fight back and, and crush this ticket kind of thing. So I, yeah uh this is new to me um and it hurts me because that’s part of our ro – role as a, to provide service, enforcement, protection and uh public sec – um public safety. So yeah to me I’m just flabbergasted on that but no I don’t think there was a conflict. Our conversation has nothing to do with the ticket in hand. He was given a drive without reasonable consideration. It’s the public complaining about this kind of

64

driving behaviour. That’s, that’s a side matter that management dealt with– dealt with back in July [inaudible] and he didn’t pursue it so that’s a different matter.

Towards the end of the hearing, however, Robin finally acknowledged that perhaps someone might possibly think there was bias in the situation, but that he didn’t perceive any bias at the time. I have already noted elsewhere my conclusion that Robin was intent to prosecute the Reimer Ticket because in his mind he thought if Reimer was convicted, that would prove Robin never did anything wrong in relation to his conduct towards Reimer. Robin was unable to distinguish between the way he treated Reimer and the circumstances of the traffic ticket. This gave rise, not just to a perception of bias or conflict of interest, but an actual conflict of interest. Because of his personal interest in the outcome of the Reimer Ticket prosecution, Robin lost all objectivity. This is conduct unbecoming a police officer. Ground 4(f)

f. you willfully disregarded the direction of Joseph Kulyk, senior Crown Prosecutor respecting the Casey Reimer matter, in direct violation of Prince Albert Police Service written policy, which provides that the Crown Prosecutor has overriding authority to determine what charges will be prosecuted once any given matter reaches court. You did so without consulting, informing, or obtaining the approval of any superior officer of the Prince Albert Police Service;

Robin’s counsel submits:

• The complaint about Reimer’s driving was a legitimate complaint, backed by citizens, and Robin stood up for something he felt should go ahead.

• No one ever gave Robin a direct order not to prosecute the case. No one from the PA Police Service told Robin not to prosecute. The Kulyk Memorandum was, according to Kulyk himself, his “initial reaction or initial impression with the file”. Even Kellett saw it as an invitation for further discussion.

• Robin came from a background in the RCMP where he prosecuted traffic tickets.

• The reference to “charges” in the PA Police Service Policy is a reference to criminal charges. Tickets are “violations”, not “charges”. Sergeant Kellett testified that a charge, before it proceeds to court, is supplied to the supervisor who supplies it to the Crown. Counsel says this makes no sense in relation to a traffic prosecution because a supervisor does not approve the ticket before it is issued. There is a whole section on traffic tickets and it doesn’t mention the prosecutor. Robin drew this distinction between violations and charges. While there is an overriding discretion in the prosecutor on criminal charges, there is nothing like that in relation to violations.

65

• A PA Police Service officer told Kulyk that Robin intended to prosecute the Reimer Ticket. Kulyk didn’t stop Robin from doing so. There was “no big deal” about Robin prosecuting. Kulyk never complained about Robin prosecuting.

• There wasn’t a lot of opportunity for Robin to get approval for the prosecution because it was Christmas time. In any event, Robin believed he was authorized to prosecute the ticket himself, so he saw no need to get authorization from a superior.

McFee’s counsel says:

• A review of the Policy Manual section on Charging and Enforcement demonstrates that this section was intended to cover not only criminal charges, but charges under provincial offences such as tickets. The section clearly references provincial offences and municipal by-law prosecutions and refers to them as charges.

• When Kulyk didn’t try to stop Robin from prosecuting the Reimer Ticket, Kulyk was not aware that Robin had not obtained permission from his superiors to do so, nor was he aware of the conflict of interest because Reimer had complained about Robin’s conduct.

Robin has maintained throughout that he had the legal right to prosecute the Reimer Ticket. By this, he means that there was no legal impediment to a police officer prosecuting a traffic ticket issued under provincial legislation. The evidence establishes that in some police agencies, notably some detachments of the RCMP, officers do prosecute provincial offences. The fact a police officer is a person who has the legal capacity to prosecute a traffic ticket, however, only means that Robin didn’t do anything illegal by prosecuting the ticket. That begs the question of whether Robin had authority within the PA Police Service to prosecute the ticket. I will begin with the Policy Manual. I have quoted at length from the Charging and Enforcement section at page 8-9 of this decision. The policy is clear that while the laying of “charges” is the responsibility of the members of the Service, the Crown Prosecutor has the overriding discretion to decide which charges to prosecute once a matter reaches court. Not only is this policy, but it is the practice followed at the PA Police Service, a practice to which Robin had been exposed for more than three years when the events in question took place. I find no merit in the argument there is a distinction between “charges” and “violations” in the policy. I note specifically two excerpts from the policy:

When, as a result of a criminal code driving offence investigation, moving offences under another Statute, Provincial Legislation or a Municipal Bylaw are observed and determined to form part of the driving pattern, it is inappropriate to lay such charges when the evidence in relation thereto will be disclosed at the hearing of the criminal charge. [emphasis added]

…

66

For example, when a person is charged with an impaired driving offence, violations such as disobey a red light or liquor in motor vehicle may be observed and are part of the evidence to substantiate the charge of impaired driving. In these circumstances, charges under another authority need not be initiated. This would not include such violations as driving while disqualified or unregistered motor vehicle, which does not form part of the impaired driving evidence. [emphasis added]

These excerpts demonstrate that the word “charges” in this policy is used, not only in relation to Criminal Code matters, but also in relation to provincial and other offences. In any event, Robin never even looked at the Policy Manual. He admits he never read the Charging and Enforcement section. Robin also admits he did not expressly get consent of a senior officer to prosecuting the ticket. He maintains he didn’t think he had to. Robin relied on Reiman’s advice instead. Reiman testified that he told Robin that in around 2005, when he was involved in an enforcement blitz he had five matters that were scheduled for trial. When he arrived for the trials, there was no prosecutor. Reiman said he prosecuted two of the five cases. He didn’t think he was qualified to prosecute the other three. Reiman was a sergeant at the time. He also prosecuted a bylaw offence once when no prosecutor showed up. This evidence, even if true, did not establish that in December 2009, it was appropriate for an officer of the PA Police Service to attempt to prosecute a case when the Crown decided not to proceed. It was not reasonable for Robin to rely on Reiman’s advice because at the time Reiman had not been on the police force for at least five years. While Robin would not estimate the number of traffic tickets he had written since joining the PA Police Service, he did acknowledge that he knew the system for prosecutions in Prince Albert was different from when he was with the RCMP in British Columbia. He knew tickets in Prince Albert were prosecuted by the Crown Prosecutor’s Office. There is evidence before me as well that even in British Columbia once a case has been turned over to the Crown, the prosecutor has complete carriage of the case. Even Reiman says he told Robin to check policy. While Robin didn’t check the policy, however, I am satisfied he was well aware of the way the PA Police Service conducted business, he was well aware that the prosecutor decided which cases would go to trial, and he was well aware that PA Police Service officers did not prosecute. Robin testified to his view that Kulyk’s memorandum only gave him an opinion, not a decision not to prosecute. Kulyk did not give a direction or an order. Robin says that using his past experiences and his good relationships with Crown prosecutors in British Columbia, he felt the matter was open for discussion, so that’s what he did. There is always an NCO on duty on every shift. On December 30, 2009, Robin’s own Sergeant, Kellett, was on duty. On December 31, the NCO was Sergeant Dave Schluff. Robin chose not to speak to either of these two men, or for that

67

matter to anyone, about what he was doing and thinking on the Reimer matter. Robin worked January 1 and 2, 2010 and never talked to the NCO in charge then either. He never went to or called the office on January 4, 2010 either. In this proceeding, he maintained that he didn’t think he had to talk to his superiors about the case, even though he knew what he was contemplating was not routine. Instead of getting guidance from a sergeant in the PA Police Service, Robin chose to take his advice from Ian Reiman, a retired police officer. Considering all the evidence of events leading up to Robin’s prosecution of the Reimer Ticket, I have concluded on a balance of probabilities that Robin went out of his way to ensure that his superiors and others who might have stopped him from doing so, did not know he was going to prosecute the Reimer Ticket. While Robin said he wasn’t quiet at work about his views on the Kulyk memorandum, I am satisfied that he never told anyone in the PA Police Service beforehand of his intention to prosecute the case. This was another one of those areas where Robin dodged the question when asked.

Q. Okay, but my question is this: Did you share with any of those other officers your idea about prosecuting the ticket yourself if Kulyk wouldn’t?

A. I think I have uttered it to Constable Glynn just in the traffic room, but I can’t be certain. We’re not documenting the conversations we’re having and stuff, so we’re not expected to do that and it’s just not done, but – ‘cause again, I’ve prosecuted many tickets before, so I could have said that.

I am satisfied that the first anyone at the PA Police Service knew Robin intended to prosecute the Reimer Ticket was when two of Robin’s fellow officers saw him at the provincial court house on January 5, 2010 shortly before the Reimer trial began. In conclusion on this point, then, I find that Robin disregarded the Kulyk’s decision not to prosecute the Reimer Ticket. PA Police Service policy dictates that the prosecutor has the discretion with respect to which charges proceed. Robin went ahead to prosecute the Reimer Ticket without seeking approval to do so from anyone in authority at the PA Police Service. This is unbecoming and dishonourable and amounts to discreditable conduct. Ground 4(g)

g. you have willfully made a false statement about a fellow member of the Prince Albert Police Service, Sgt. Kellett, by accusing him of taking steps to “stop” service of a subpoena on a Crown witness;

Robin’s counsel submits:

• Robin never accused Sergeant Kellett of stopping the subpoena. All he told PCC Investigator Wade was that when he talked to Kristy Wright she said Kellett had stopped the subpoena and Robin should probably go talk to Kellett and ask him why. Robin only mentioned this to Wade because he was being pressed for his grounds for believing there was administrative interference with the Reimer Ticket.

68

McFee’s counsel submits:

• Robin was clear in his accusation against Kellett. He intended PCC investigator Wade to conclude Kellett had done something inappropriate in relation to the Lukowski subpoena.

On this allegation, there is a conflict in the evidence. Wright testified that she never had any conversations with Patrick Robin about the Lukowski subpoena. She denies telling Robin that Kellett had stopped the Lukowski subpoena. Robin testified that he spoke with Kristy Wright on December 30, 2009 at which time she said Kellett had stopped the Lukowski subpoena. Robin says Wright said, “Sergeant Kellett stopped the subpoena. You should probably ask him why he did it.” Robin admits he never went to ask Kellett about the Lukowski subpoena. According to the work schedule, both he and Kellett were working on December 30, 2009. He said he never asked Kellett because he didn’t care. He says he didn’t believe Kristy Wright at the time. That’s why he never went to Kellett. I accept Wright’s testimony over Robin’s testimony on this point. If the conversation with Wright took place as Robin says, then one would have expected Robin to go straight to Kellett and find out what had happened to the subpoena. Robin had certainly demonstrated in his dealing with Kulyk that he wasn’t shy about confronting people. Instead, Robin did nothing and at various times gave various explanations for why he didn’t talk to Kellett. I find it is more likely than not that the conversation with Wright never took place as Robin alleges. While Robin says he never accused Kellett of stopping the Lukowski subpoena and that he only repeated to the PCC investigator what Kristy Wright had said, the record of the PCC investigation interviews tells a different story. During the first interview, Robin was engaged in a narrative description of what he had done in relation to the Reimer prosecution. In the middle of it, he said this (page 4, transcript):

…And then during that week then I did follow up calls uh with the witnesses and informed them of the memo um that each provided um one complaint, but each provided a statement and they were subpoenaed. And that’s, that’s when I discovered that Louis Lukowski from Melfort was never subpoenaed and that it was stopped from um from within the office here at some point by Sergeant Kellett and that’s through the court desk. … [emphasis added]

Robin clearly told the investigator that the subpoena had been stopped by Kellett. He stated it as a fact. In the second interview, Robin again told the investigator that Wright had told him Kellett had stopped the subpoena. Wade then asked what Robin did with that information:

Wade: OK. And once you got this information from Christie Wright, did you, what action did you take in regards to the, that information that she told you?

69

Robin: um she just said I should be probably asking why uh Sgt. Kellett uh uh stopped it. And I don’t think I ever did ask Tadd. I don’t know if he was on holidays. Again this was Christmas and holiday season and stuff but I never did ask Tadd why he stopped it.

…

Wade: OK did you, now, did you take any other action? Did you phone the Melfort RCMP to see if they’d received the subpoena?

Robin: No.

Wade: Ok. Did you think about doing that?

Robin: Nope. I asked Louis and confirmed on the phone he wanted to attend and he wanted to bring more witnesses so that was more than enough that I, I was satisfied that he’d be there on the January 5th.

Even if Robin believed he had the conversation with Wright, Robin never took any steps to find out what had happened with the subpoena. The evidence establishes Kellett had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lukowski subpoena. With little effort, Robin would have been able to establish that. To accuse Kellett of stopping the subpoena without checking into the circumstances was reckless. Robin made misleading and inaccurate statements. This is discreditable conduct because it is conduct unbecoming a police officer. Ground 4(h)

h. you have willfully made a false statement regarding a civilian employee of the Prince Albert Police Service, Kristy Wright, by stating that she was the person who informed you that Sgt. Kellett had taken steps to stop the subpoena to a Crown witness;

Robin’s counsel submits that Robin was forthright in his testimony and whether or not Kristy Wright said what he alleges, he believes he heard her say what he has attributed to her. I have already found that I prefer Kristy Wright’s testimony to Robin’s with respect to this matter. Ground 4(i)

i. you have willfully made a false statement about a former fellow member of the Prince Albert Police Service, Insp. Georgeson, by accusing him of interfering in the investigation or prosecution of the traffic ticket offence against Casey Reimer;

Robin’s counsel submits:

• Robin couldn’t understand how Casey Reimer all of a sudden got access to Inspector Georgeson over what wasn’t even a formal complaint. Wauters handed Robin a copy of the Georgeson E-mail and said, “Georgie probably knows him.” This caused Robin to be suspicious.

• Robin’s answers to Wade were in response to persistent questioning by Wade.

70

McFee’s counsel submits:

• When Robin made allegations against Inspector Georgeson to PCC investigator Wade, it was not as a result of persistent questioning. On the contrary, Robin brought it up. Wade asked Robin what lead him to believe that anybody in the department wanted to get Casey Reimer off and Robin volunteered, “Inspector Georgeson when he sent out that e-mail on June 18th.”

In his testimony, Robin said he didn’t accuse Georgeson of interfering in the investigation or prosecution of the ticket. Robin says when he spoke to PCC investigator Wade about Georgeson, he was talking about Georgeson’s June 18, 2009 e-mail. He says it was the e-mail that concerned him. During the first PCC interview, more than once Robin mentioned something to the effect that whoever wanted Casey Reimer to “get off” on the ticket should have just come and talked to him. Because of those comments, Wade asked Reimer some questions:

Wade: Okay well I’ll ask you this. You ‘cause you bring it up, you brought it up a couple of times. What leads you to believe that anybody in the department here, and you can specify who, wanted Casey Reimer to get off that ticket?

Robin: Inspector Georgeson when he sent out that email on June 18th.

Wade: And what was that about?

Robin: You never seen it? I think I got it here. That’s when he says there’s another public complaint or public concern that comes in – I don’t have it on me – uh and that they’re putting me on an interim monitoring program ‘cause I issued this kid a ticket. A certain person told me that he probably knows Georgeson so and you know I won’t beat around the bush, tickets are being pulled on a daily, not a daily basis but on a weekly basis. People know people in this town. This town is small. Uh people get breaks, okay? And this certain person said this kid probably knows Georgeson and you know one person said that he might have live with him on McCraney Crescent. So, you know, this is stuff that you know some of the people are disclosing to me so, if Georgeson wanted to give him a break, he should have just, I shouldn’t have been tasked the subpoenas, I shouldn’t have been tasked to do anything else further, further from that. Then none of this would have ever happened. I wouldn’t have prosecuted the matter and I wouldn’t have known, uh I would have known. Um so yeah that email three days after I issued a ticket, I don’t know how that played out, whether he just walked into the office and goes into Inspector Georgeson’s office and gets to talk to him, I don’t know how that, how that, I never did get privy to how that played out so. [underlining added]

When Wade asked Robin if he had any concrete information that anybody in the department took steps to have the ticket quashed, Robin answered:

Well that would be something for you to investigate on that. I’ve given you a couple of leads.

During the second PCC interview, the following occurred: Wade: OK so you know you, you’re a police officer, uh you attend to uh another police service uh you make criminal allegations against the chief and, and again other unnamed officers. Um what information regarding this did you have to make those criminal allegations?

71

Robin: Well just the process that it went through and stuff and um you know I told you last week, Ron Moniuk knew that Casey Reimer got a break before and um and that he actually knew I was taking heat for giving Casey Reimer a ticket so um and then people telling me that hey, yeah, Georgie may even know Reimer and stuff, and again nobody gave me a concrete information on that it’s just everyone’s suspicion and stuff so uh just everything, how it played out and how it was withdrawn from court when it was in front of court, um it was in process with the judge and all the sudden it gets withdrawn.

These statements by Robin during the PCC investigation can only be described as accusations that Georgeson interfered with the investigation and prosecution of the Reimer Ticket. Even if one cannot characterize the statements as false (in the sense Robin had convinced himself to believe what he said), they were certainly made recklessly and the statements were misleading and inaccurate. To behave in this fashion is unbecoming for a police officer. Ground 4(j)

j. you arranged for a witness to attend from out of town to testify with respect to the Casey Reimer traffic ticket offence without making any arrangement for such witness’s travel expenses to be covered, and failed to assist the witness in recovering such expenses after their evidence was given;

Robin’s counsel says:

• Robin tried to help Lukowski to recover his expenses, but Robin wasn’t aware that witnesses received their expenses. Robin did nothing inappropriate in this regard.

Lukowski testified that initially he didn’t receive his expenses for his attendance at the Reimer trial, but that eventually the PA Police Service looked after his expenses. Robin says he didn’t know witnesses were to get expenses paid, so that’s why he didn’t make arrangements. This is another one of those things that if he was being completely open, one would have thought he would have asked someone while he was preparing for the case. I see nothing wrong, however, with what Robin did in relation to Lukowski’s questions about travel expenses. The problem was that Lukowski should never have testified in the first place because the case should not have been prosecuted. Ground 4(k)

k. you have made a false allegation of criminal conduct against myself and other senior officers of the Prince Albert Police Service by alleging to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Saskatchewan Public Complaints Commission that we have been guilty of obstruction of justice with respect to the Casey Reimer matter. You did this despite your knowledge that the decision not to prosecute the Reimer matter was made by the

72

Crown Prosecutor handling the file, not by myself or any of the senior officers you accused of wrongdoing.

Robin’s counsel submits:

• There is no evidence Robin complained to the PCC. With respect to going to the RCMP, Robin approached the RCMP in confidence. He never authorized the RCMP to go to his employer about his call.

• Robin was a “whistle blower”. He believed there may have been administrative interference with the Reimer Ticket. He referred to his “totality of evidence” and gave specific examples. As far as Robin was concerned, the obstruction of justice occurred when the Reimer charge was withdrawn on January 14, 2010.

• No one told Robin the charge had been withdrawn. When Robin found out about it, Reiman told Robin it was obstruction of justice. Robin was entitled to rely on that advice. Robin was thinking the Reimer Ticket was like other tickets he had heard about from Reiman where the PA Police Service had pulled tickets. Robin accepted this advice and acted in good faith in reporting what he thought was obstruction of justice. Even if Robin was not correct, if he had an honest belief, he was justified in reporting to the RCMP. All Robin wanted was an investigation. Robin acted in good faith based on his honest belief.

McFee’s counsel submits:

• Robin’s alleged reasonable and probable grounds for going to the RCMP do not stand up to scrutiny.

At the hearing, Robin maintained that he didn’t make a formal complaint to the RCMP. He made an allegation. Later, he admitted that he had asked Sergeant Derworiz to take his complaint and investigate it. Robin claims that his complaint to the RCMP was not a vendetta or a revenge tactic against McFee. He claims he acted in good faith because he had reasonable grounds to suspect interference. Robin said there were eight elements to his “reasonable and probable grounds” for going to the RCMP with his complaint of obstruction. I will discuss them here:

1. The “trigger” was the withdrawal of the traffic ticket. Nobody told Robin anything. Stienwand had told Robin on January 14 that someone would be dealing with the ticket on January 18 and the ticket was actually withdrawn on the 14th. Even though this was Robin’s “trigger” ground, he took no steps to find out who had appeared in court or what had been said. Robin didn’t call the court house or the Crown prosecutor for more detail. He didn’t ask his union representatives to intervene to find out what had actually happened with the ticket. He didn’t get legal advice. Even the most cursory investigation would have revealed that Cooper had turned the matter back

73

to the prosecutor that Kulyk decided not to proceed and that Kulyk had withdrawn the charge on January 14 because he was in court that day on other matters anyway. In all the circumstances, there is nothing in what occurred in relation to the withdrawal of the Reimer Ticket that could reasonably lead anyone to believe McFee or anyone else at the PA Police Service had interfered with the prosecution. If someone at the PA Police Service had actually wanted the Reimer Ticket to go away, they would have done something about it long before January 2010. They would have seen to it that the ticket was “pulled” back in June, 2009.

2. The memo from the Chief putting Robin on administrative leave kicked Robin out of the office and told him to stay away from all the witnesses in relation to court-related matters. Robin says this suggested obstruction because “nobody was telling me nothing other than this [the memo]” and because McFee was telling him to stay away from the Reimer matter. I fail to see how this information could reasonably have lead anyone to believe the Chief or senior administration was interfering with the Reimer Ticket. They were focused on Robin’s conduct which was of concern to them because without authority Robin had taken it upon himself to prosecute the Reimer Ticket. While the investigation of Robin’s conduct was ongoing, there was nothing wrong with placing him on administrative leave and telling him to cease his involvement in the Reimer matter. While Robin says they weren’t telling him anything, Stienwand did tell Robin they were turning the matter back to the prosecutor’s office.

3. Robin’s conversation with Joe Kulyk on January 4 when Kulyk said he wasn’t prosecuting because Robin had given the wrong ticket. On December 14, Kulyk said he wasn’t prosecuting the case because the soccer people told Reimer to fuck off. Robin thought these explanations were inconsistent. Also, Robin found the Kulyk Memorandum to be subjective and inconsistent. Robin acknowledged that while he disagreed with Kulyk at the time, he did believe that Kulyk was genuinely of the opinion there was not a reasonable likelihood of a conviction in the Reimer case. If Robin believed Kulyk’s opinion was genuine, then the logical conclusion was that Kulyk’s genuine opinion was the reason the prosecution wasn’t proceeding. It is difficult to see how any reasonable person would leap from Kulyk’s genuine opinion to the conclusion that somehow McFee or someone else in senior management at the PA Police Service did not want the ticket prosecuted. Robin didn’t have any evidence to suggest this was the case.

74

4. When Robin spoke to Parenteau on the telephone on January 5 to ask why he was not at the court house, Robin says Parenteau said he wasn’t there because the day before a sergeant told him not to attend court. The only evidence before in this hearing that a police officer told Parenteau not to come to court is Robin’s hearsay evidence that this is what Parenteau told him. There is no direct evidence from Parenteau on this point. Kulyk testified that he called Parenteau on January 4 and during their conversation told Parenteau not to attend court the next day. Parenteau testified that the prosecutor told him the case wasn’t proceeding. This is likely the reason Parenteau didn’t attend court. In any event, even if a police officer did call Parenteau, it’s hard to understand how a reasonable person would think that a police officer telling a witness not to attend court for a trial that everyone other than Constable Robin understood was not going ahead, could be a participant in obstruction of justice. Robin admits that when a trial isn’t going ahead, it is usually the investigating officer who notifies the witnesses. He says he wasn’t asked to contact the witnesses. I note, of course, that Robin was not at work on January 4, so if the prosecutor wanted someone to cancel witnesses, another officer would have had to do it. Robin never even considered this possibility. Robin admits that at no time did he ask Kulyk whether he had asked for the witnesses to be cancelled. A few simple questions would have clarified what happened.

5. Robin spoke with Kristy Wright on December 30, 2009 at which time she said Kellett had stopped the Lukowski subpoena. I have already dealt with this matter in some detail under Grounds 4(g) and (h). I note here that Robin and Kellett were both at work on December 30, 2009. If this incident occurred as Robin suggested, it would have been a simple matter for Robin to ask Kellett what had happened to the Lukowski subpoena. Robin could have checked with the Melfort RCMP to see if they had received the subpoena and what had happened to it. I note as well that over time Robin gave different reasons for why he didn’t speak to Kellett about the matter. More than once, he said he didn’t ask because he didn’t care. At another point he said he didn’t believe Kristy Wright at the time. To the PCC investigator he suggested he may not have had the opportunity to ask Kellett because it was Christmas and Kellett may not have been there.

6. Ron Moniuk had told Robin that he heard from a source that Casey Reimer had “got off on a prior incident”. Robin said Moniuk had apparently gotten his information from a source he was not willing to divulge. Moniuk provided no details on the supposed charge. He did not say when it supposedly happened or who was involved. Moniuk didn’t explain what he meant by “got off”. Robin did not

75

look for any corroboration of Moniuk’s information. Even so, there was nothing in Moniuk’s statement to implicate Chief McFee in obstruction of justice.

7. Georgeson’s June 18, 2009 e-mail putting Robin on a coaching program without speaking to him first. I have quoted Robin’s comments about the Georgeson E-mail under Ground 4(i) above. I will not repeat them here. Robin’s explanation for this being one of his grounds is that things were transpiring at this time and he was “out of the loop”. Nobody was telling him anything. Robin points to the comment he alleges was made by Barry Wauters to the effect that “Georgie probably knows him.” He did not, however, ask Wauters what he meant by that comment or pursue more information in any other way. Robin also acknowledges he wasn’t sure what Wauters meant by the comment. He acknowledges it may have been a joke, but he didn’t know. For his reasonable and probable grounds, he accepted what Wauters said at face value. Robin took Georgeson’s e-mail as a written reprimand for issuing the ticket to Reimer. The statements given by Reimer and Brooks say nothing whatsoever in the way of complaint about the ticket Robin issued to Reimer. Their focus is Robin’s behavior towards them on June 15. The focus of the Georgeson E-mail was on Robin’s behavior on June 15. There is nothing in the e-mail to suggest Robin’s superiors are concerned that Robin has issued a ticket. They are concerned because they have received a complaint about Robin’s behavior, especially because there had been previous complaints.

8. Chief McFee’s reputation of pulling tickets in the office and Ian Reiman’s experiences with McFee. Robin says Reiman told him about an experience with McFee telling Reiman not to ticket family, not to ticket city employees and trying to get Reiman to pull the ticket for the city employee. Robin also considered Reiman’s advice to him that in the past the police had “pulled” tickets in exchange for information. Reiman testified that when he was in the criminal investigative division working plain clothes, he “pulled” tickets that had been issued to certain people in exchange for information about a crime. If a ticket involved a complaint from a member of the public, he would not pull it. If it only involved an officer witnessing the infraction, then he would speak to the officer and get their okay to pull the ticket. Reiman also testified that some years ago he was involved in a situation where he gave a seatbelt ticket to a city employee. According to Reiman, McFee, who was an Inspector at the time, was upset that Reiman had issued the ticket. The ticket was not, however, “pulled”. Reiman also testified to a situation where he was going to give a ticket to someone, but decided not to when he saw that person with McFee’s father

76

in law. Reiman says he was told by another officer that he had a good case for a complaint against McFee, but he didn’t pursue it. In cross-examination, Robin acknowledged that Reiman may have been influencing Robin’s decisions more than was appropriate. Unfortunately, Robin accepted Reiman’s allegations and advice and assistance without question. I have already noted that Reiman was not a credible witness, especially because much of his evidence was conjecture and hearsay.

Robin argues that the “totality” of these eight “facts and circumstances” gave him reasonable and probable grounds to believe McFee and others had interfered in the Reimer Ticket prosecution. The problem with Robin’s alleged beliefs is that they were not reasonable. Robin had no cogent evidence to suggest that anyone in senior administration at the PA Police Service interfered at any time in the prosecution of the Reimer Ticket. He allowed Reiman to influence him to make accusations against McFee. I am also satisfied that Robin saw these accusations as one way to take some of the “heat” from himself. Robin consistently relies on hearsay, supposition and conjecture. He did not take obvious steps to clarify information. He admits he didn’t know who had made the decision to withdraw the Reimer Ticket, but he never took any steps to find out. The withdrawal of the ticket was Robin’s “tipping point”, the critical event, and yet he took no steps whatsoever to find out what had actually happened before he leveled accusations of obstruction of justice. As an officer who has been praised for having good investigative skills, Robin should have known better. This is unbecoming conduct. Summary of Conclusions (collectively, the “Misconduct”) In summary, I have found the following, on a balance of probabilities:

• There were two instances of improper disclosure of information, one when Robin gave the Kulyk Memorandum to Mike Parenteau and one when Robin shared information from the Reimer Ticket prosecution file with Ian Reiman.

• Robin engaged in insubordinate and unbecoming conduct when he arranged to have the subpoena issued to himself so he could attend court to prosecute the Reimer matter when he knew if he sought approval for overtime to attend court to prosecute, his superiors would almost certainly have denied the request.

• Robin mislead Sergeant Kellett about his communications with Kulyk. He deliberately avoided keeping Kellett informed as events unfolded. This was unbecoming conduct.

• Robin engaged in unbecoming conduct when, knowing he had been directed not to contact the witnesses in the Reimer Ticket matter, he provided contact information to Reiman so that Reiman could contact the

77

witnesses to tell them the prosecution had been withdrawn and that Robin was “taking heat” because of it.

• Robin made false and misleading statements to PCC Investigator Wade in relation to sharing information from the Reimer Ticket file with Wade.

• By actively pursuing the Reimer Ticket prosecution against a citizen who had complained against him, Robin put himself in a perceived conflict of interest. By pursuing the prosecution because of his personal interest in ensuring there was a conviction, Robin put himself in a situation of actual conflict of interest. This is conduct unbecoming a police officer.

• Robin engaged in conduct unbecoming a police officer when he chose, without seeking permission from his superiors to do so, to personally prosecute the Reimer Ticket after the Crown prosecutor chose not to proceed with the case.

• Robin engaged in conduct unbecoming a police officer when, during the PCC investigation interviews, without having taken any steps to verify his information, he told the investigator that Sergeant Kellett had stopped the Lukowski subpoena.

• Robin made false or misleading statements and engaged in conduct unbecoming a police officer when, during the PCC investigation interviews, without having taken any steps to verify his information, he accused Inspector Georgeson of interfering with the Reimer Ticket.

• Robin engaged in discreditable conduct when, without reasonable and probable grounds to do so, he made accusations of obstruction of justice against McFee and others at the PA Police Service.

VII. Is Robin Unsuitable for Police Service within s. 60 of the Act? I have found that Robin’s conduct summarized above amounts to discreditable conduct and other disciplinary offences sufficient to warrant a disciplinary response from the Chief. The question now is whether that conduct was sufficient to warrant the Chief’s conclusion that Robin so unsuitable for police service that the only alternative was dismissal. The chief had options under section 60 if he concluded Robin was unsuitable for police service. Those options included dismissal, demotion, suspension, probation, counseling, treatment or training, reprimand, any order he saw fit or any combination of all these things. My powers are set out in section 65:

65(1) With respect to a hearing conducted pursuant to section 61, the hearing officer may, after hearing any representations made by the member and the chief:

(e) dismiss the appeal;

(f) allow the appeal;

(g) vary the decision or order of the chief; or

(h) make any other order that the hearing officer considers appropriate.

78

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (12), where a member has been dismissed, the hearing officer my order that the member be reinstated.

As part of this analysis, section 63 of the Act requires that I consider whether remedial efforts would have been appropriate, whether the deficiencies should have been and were brought to the member’s attention, whether the member was given a reasonable opportunity to bring his performance up to an acceptable level and whether the member should have been afforded treatment, training, guidance, counseling or coaching. Police officers are held to a high standard of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness. In Panteluk, supra, at page 41, the hearing officer said this:

There is no checklist for a hearing officer to follow in attempting to determine whether certain conduct renders a police officer unsuitable or incompetent to continue acting as a police officer.

Nevertheless, I believe I should take into account the nature and severity of any proven offence, the employment history of the officer, any useful precedents that might provide guidance and any other relevant factors, (e.g. the impact on the reputation of the Police Service) in attempting to arrive at a decision.

To begin, I should note that a single act amounting to a major offence against discipline may fully justify a finding that an officer is unsuitable or incompetent, just as an act or a number of acts amounting to major offences against discipline may not, given the circumstances and context of that act(s), justify a finding that an officer is unsuitable or incompetent.

Counsel refers me to Saskatoon City Police Association and Bernard J. McLane v. The Saskatchewan Police Commission et al. [2000] SKQB 339, where at para 62, the hearing officer is quoted as follows:

In my view, the obligation of a Chief of Police to institute remedial efforts prior to contemplating dismissal of a member is limited largely to circumstances where the conduct of the member puts into question the competency of the member. Section 63 of the Act quite clearly indicates this restricted need for initiating remedial efforts:

[here he quotes s. 63]

This section addressed problems related to deficiencies inn the performance of a member and in that context a Hearing Officer is directed to consider if the member was “afforded appropriate treatment, training, guidance, coaching or counseling”. The issued addressed in Section 63 is the “standard of performance” of the member and whether remedial efforts that were carried out are to be considered by the Hearing Officer “where it is reasonable to do so”.

Hence, if a member has demonstrated a lack of skill in communicating with the public or completing required records, the provisions of Section 63 of the Act are relevant. However, if a member commits an armed robbery, there is no requirement that remedial efforts be pursued before the Chief of Police considers dismissing the member under Section 60 of the Act.

On the appeal, the Saskatchewan Board of Police Commissioners agreed with this approach. At page 22, they say:

… The question is whether or not such remedial efforts are a mandatory requirement of section 60(1)(b) of the Act. Hearing Officer Gerrand concluded that such remedial efforts were not a mandatory requirement. It was his conclusion that the remedial efforts mentioned in this section of the Act are only required “Where reasonably appropriate”. He

79

concluded that such efforts are not reasonable appropriate in cases of serious misconduct or commission of crime. He was also of the view that the remedial efforts contemplated by this section are more appropriate to cases of incompetence rather than unsuitability of the member. …We have concluded that remedial efforts are not a mandatory requirement in all cases and that the Hearing Officer’s conclusions in that regard in the present case were correct. …

Goldenberg, J., accepted this approach to remedial efforts. Counsel cited a number of cases that discuss factors to be considered in assessing discipline. The cases tend to cite the same factors. For example, in Brudlo v. Toronto Police Service (October 19, 2005), the following appears at pages 14-15:

When assessing what might be an appropriate penalty for such behaviour a Hearing Officer is obliged to take into account a number of factors. In Williams and OPP the Commission identified three key elements. These include the nature and seriousness of the misconduct in question, the ability to reform or rehabilitate the officer and the damage that would occur to the reputation of the police service if the officer were permitted to remain on the force.

Other factors can be relevant, either mitigating or aggravating the possible penalty. They include the officer’s:

• employment history and experience;

• recognition of the seriousness of the transgression; and

• handicap or other relevant personal circumstances.

Other potential considerations are provocation, the need for deterrence, concerns arising from management’s approach and consistency with previous penalties for similar infractions.

The same factors were identified in Gregg and Midland Police Service (October 2, 2001). Carmichael and Ontario Provincial Police (May 21, 1998) cites similar factors and adds one additional factor, the officer’s usefulness to remain as a police officer. The Order of Dismissal contains the following paragraph:

5. Remedial action short of dismissal is not a reasonable alternative in the circumstances for the following reasons:

a. your conduct as outlined above has been brought or could bring discredit upon the Prince Albert Police Service, and has eroded or could erode public confidence in the effectiveness and fairness of the Prince Albert Police Service;

b. your conduct as outlined above demonstrates an unwillingness or inability on your part to accept and follow Prince Albert Police Service policies, the directions of your superiors, and the decisions of the Crown Prosecutor’s Office;

c. your conduct as outlined above had damaged the working relationship of the Prince Albert Police Service with the Crown Prosecutor’s Office, and has undermined or could undermine the confidence of the Crown Prosecutor’s Office in the integrity of Police Service members;

80

d. in particular, your conduct as outlined above has irreparably damaged your working relationship with the Crown Prosecutor’s Office, which will or could impair your effectiveness as a police officer;

e. your conduct as outlined above has also irreparably damaged your working relationship with some of your fellow members of the Prince Albert Police Service, with myself, and with senior officers of the Service;

f. your conduct as outlined above is entirely inconsistent with the standard of truthfulness, integrity and fairness required of each and every member of the Prince Albert Police Service. These are core values of the Police Service, and tolerance of conduct such as that outlined above would or could erode public confidence in the integrity and the Prince Albert Police Service and its members;

g. your past conduct has been the subject of remedial efforts, including verbal cautions, the provision of a coaching officer, close supervision, and the commencement of disciplinary charges which remain outstanding. Your conduct as outlined above has occurred despite these past efforts, and demonstrates an unwillingness to conform your behaviour to the standards required of a Prince Albert Police Service member;

h. I have lost confidence in your ability to perform your duties in a fair, effective and honest manner, and have determined that the working relationship has been damaged beyond repair.

While I will address each of these points, I will do so under the headings identified in the cases as the relevant factors. 1. Nature and seriousness of the Misconduct McFee’s counsel says:

• This is a serious matter. This officer reported his superior officers to the RCMP on the flimsiest of evidence. The RCMP didn’t investigate because there was nothing to investigate. This was the culmination of a pattern of disrespectful and insubordinate conduct extending over a period of months. It began with Robin’s decision to prosecute the Reimer Ticket without checking policy or getting permission and in the face of the prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute, and it ended with an attempt to have his own chief charged with obstruction of justice. This is not just a small error of judgment. This conduct makes Robin unsuitable for police service.

• At best, when Robin chose to prosecute the Reimer Ticket, he was completely reckless as to whether this was a permissible course for him to take.

• Taken as a whole, Robin’s conduct does not disclose an issue of competence, but rather an issue of character. Counsel acknowledges Robin has good skills and abilities, including good investigative and interviewing skills. Robin has received good performance appraisals. The issue is his character, not his competence.

• Robin’s character is demonstrated by his choices. These included:

81

o At the outset, Robin chose to be rude and dismissive to Casey Reimer and Andrew Brooks.

o Robin chose to confront Kulyk, the senior Crown prosecutor in a confrontational, aggressive and demanding way. He threatened Kulyk with release of the Kulyk memorandum, and he gave a copy of the Memorandum to at least one civilian witness.

o Robin did not tell his Sergeant or NCO that he intended to prosecute the Reimer Ticket. He acknowledged that he had the opportunity to discuss the matter with them, but he chose not to.

o Robin chose not to tell Kulyk of his intention to prosecute the Reimer Ticket. He could have done so as late as January 4, 2010 when Kulyk called him.

o Robin ignored an apparent conflict of interest or perception of bias in personally prosecuting the Reimer Ticket.

o Robin chose not to check the PA Police Service Policy Manual to see what it said about prosecuting tickets. He relied instead on the word of an ex-police officer who hadn’t been with the PA Police Service for five years. Even that police officer counseled Robin to check the Policy Manual.

o Robin chose to put in an overtime claim for the Reimer Ticket prosecution even though he had not obtained authorization for the overtime.

o Robin chose to damage his reputation with the Crown prosecutor’s office rather than accept the senior Crown’s opinion. He chose to pursue the prosecution because he believed he knew better.

o Robin chose to rely repeatedly on the advice of an ex-police officer rather than consult with his own sergeant or NCO or even his own union.

o Robin chose not to learn the PA Police Service policies, but rather to rely on his own view of what was acceptable.

o Robin chose to release confidential information from a police file to a civilian including an unlisted cell phone number for a witness. He chose to facilitate Reiman in making calls to the witnesses in spite of a direct order from the Chief on January 14, 2010, that he have no contact with the witnesses.

o He chose to lie to PCC investigator Wade during his first administrative interview. He could have refused to answer questions and asked to get legal or union advice. He chose to lie to the investigator and when he got caught in the lie, in the second administrative interview, he still chose not to tell Wade the whole story.

82

o Robin chose to suggest to Wade that former Inspector Georgeson had intervened in the Reimer Ticket or might have some reason to want the ticket withdrawn. He made this suggestion based on an off-hand remark of another officer. Robin could have followed up to find out what the officer meant by his remarks, but Robin did not do so.

o Robin chose to ignore the clear decision of prosecutor Kulyk that he had decided not to prosecute the Reimer Ticket. Instead, he chose to believe that the ticket had been or was being withdrawn because of some intervention on the part of the Chief or senior officers of the PA Police Service. Despite Robin’s position that he had formulated grounds for his belief, no reasonable person could have come to an actual belief in the guilt of Chief McFee or other senior officers.

o Robin chose to go to the RCMP and accuse the Chief and other senior officers of obstruction of justice without one fragment of real evidence to support his allegation. Robin was unable to explain how several of his supposed reasonable and probable grounds related to the Chief. He fell back repeatedly on saying that each allegation was just one of the grounds in the totality of circumstances. Counsel says Robin’s evidence on this point is incredible, given his experience with search warrants.

• Robin’s choices demonstrate recklessness as to his allegations about the integrity of others. They demonstrate stubbornness, self-righteousness and an unwillingness to accept that there might be another point of view. They demonstrate an attitude of confrontation and aggressiveness and an insubordinate attitude towards senior officers and the senior Crown prosecutor. He demonstrates an unwillingness to recognize the authority of people who disagree with him.

• Obedience is a critical characteristic a police service must demand from its members, obedience to the law, to policy and to the chain of command. This essential characteristic is lacking on Patrick Robin. He has shown himself to be unwilling or unable to accept the authority of others and to be obedient to the policies of the PA Police Service and the chain of command.

• All these factors taken together demonstrate that Robin is unsuitable for police service.

Robin’s counsel submits:

• It is unclear what policy the Chief is referring to when he says Robin is unwilling to accept and follow PA Police Service Policy. Robin’s past performance reviews say he has respect for rank and structure, he is respectful and obedient. He did not disobey anyone. He never received a direct order to do or not do something. He should have talked to his superiors about the Reimer Ticket, but he never disobeyed anyone.

83

• Robin says he did not know he was in breach of any policy. He did not disregard any direction from a Crown prosecutor.

• Progressive discipline was not followed in Robin’s case. McFee went directly to dismissal which is the capital punishment of all discipline. This was a “first offence” and the chief went straight to the end point - dismissal.

• The choices Robin made were errors of judgment. They do not reflect on his character. Errors of judgment involve competency and should be subject to remedial measures.

• Robin honestly thought he was doing the community a service by proceeding with the Reimer prosecution. Robin’s counsel attempts to paint Robin as the hero of the ordinary person, the officer who was willing to stand up for members of the public who were aggrieved by what his counsel often referred to as a case of “road rage”.

The Misconduct essentially falls into two categories. The first category can be best summarized as all those things Robin did and failed to do in relation to the Reimer ticket prosecution. This includes the two instances of improper disclosure of information, issuing a subpoena to compel himself to court, misleading and not keeping Kellett informed, pursuing the Reimer prosecution the way he did, and other activities in relation to the Reimer prosecution. All these things occurred because Robin was intent on prosecuting Casey Reimer. For the most part, this first category of Misconduct involves disregard of policy and the chain of command. It also involves a failure on Robin’s part to recognize that he was putting himself in a conflict of interest by aggressively pursuing the Reimer Ticket prosecution. There are two aspects to the conflict of interest. The first is the perception of bias that arises because Robin aggressively pursued a prosecution against someone who had complained against him. The second is Robin’s actual conflict of interest because of how strongly he felt about getting a conviction to prove to his superiors that Reimer was wrong in complaining about him. While counsel tries to paint Robin as the hero of victims of road rage, Robin’s job as an officer was to abide by policy and process of the Service. Counsel suggests Robin’s sole interest was to ensure that a terrible wrong perpetrated by Reimer was brought before the court. As a police officer, that was not Robin’s role. Robin’s role was to investigate and lay charges and/or issue tickets where he thought appropriate. He was well aware that from there on it was up to the Crown to decide what would happen to a case. The fact he felt justified in writing the ticket and that he wanted the case to proceed is not an excuse for his conduct. As McFee said in his testimony about the prosecutor’s decisions, “…if we take that personal and can’t accept those decisions, boy, I have a whole list of them I’d love them to prosecute more.” When Kulyk ultimately decided not to prosecute the case, it was Robin’s role as a police officer to accept the decision. Robin could not accept the idea that the

84

prosecution wouldn’t proceed because he had convinced himself that so much for him personally turned on what happened in that case. This Misconduct demonstrates stubbornness and unwillingness to accept another’s point of view. It also demonstrates disregard for policy and process. The second category of Misconduct is even more serious. It includes conduct, most of which happened after Robin’s superiors discovered he had prosecuted the Reimer case. This Misconduct includes, among others, false and misleading statements to the PCC investigator and reckless allegations of misconduct against the Chief and other senior officers with the PA Police Service. 2. The ability to reform/rehabilitate the officer (remedial measures) and

the officer’s usefulness to remain as a police officer Robin’s counsel submits:

• There are examples in evidence of Robin’s performance in the line of duty showing exemplary service. His performance appraisals point out his abilities as an investigator, interviewer and note taker.

• McFee could have provided training for Robin. Robin could have been trained on how things work with the prosecutors and traffic tickets. He could have been provided coaching and counseling about when it is appropriate to go to superiors for guidance. Coaching had been successful in the past, so there was no reason to think it would not be successful now. Robin would have been amenable to a coaching officer.

• What Robin said to Wade in the administrative interviews should be viewed in light of the situation at the time. Overall, counsel says this should not affect anyone’s confidence in Robin.

• Robin had put training about policy on his performance reviews more than once.

McFee’s counsel submits:

• Remedial measures are not required where you have someone who takes the view they don’t have to listen to authority or other people if they have a different view of a situation.

Much of what Robin did was insubordinate. There is no question about that. Robin must learn to abide by policy and respect the chain of command. Whether or not this occurs is something within Robin’s control. For a long time, even into this hearing, Robin seemed unable to accept that back in June of 2009, his superiors were concerned about the way he acted towards Casey Reimer, not about the fact he had issued a ticket to Casey Reimer. It was Robin’s lack of judgment and insight in this regard that lead to him embark on the path that resulted in his dismissal. I am satisfied, however, that by the end of the hearing, Robin had come to realize that he needs to distinguish between what he does and how he does it.

85

Robin was so focused on what he thought would take pressure off himself that he acted and thought irrationally. Everything he did was influenced by the fact he had discipline proceedings pending against him. He was also influenced by Ian Reiman which was a huge mistake. Reiman obviously has his own unresolved issues with Chief McFee and the PA Police Service and was trying to use Robin to resolve those issues. I expect that without Reiman’s “advice”, Robin may have acted differently. I note in Robin’s favour that more than one of his superiors said that when Robin had coaching in the past he was successful. Sergeant Kellett said he had a good relationship with Robin. Constable Glynn said Robin was a hard working officer, that Robin cared about his work, showed up for work and did what was asked of him. Glynn never saw any problem with Robin’s work. Robin claims he can still do his job as a police officer in a fair, effective and honest manner and that he can work with senior administration if he is given the opportunity. 3. The damage that would occur to the reputation of the police service if the officer were permitted to remain on the force Robin’s counsel submits:

• A lot of citizens of Prince Albert were happy about what Robin did in trying to prosecute the Reimer Ticket.

• Robin does not feel he would have any problem working with any of the Crown prosecutors, including Joe Kulyk. In the past, he always had a good relationship with the prosecutors.

• Kulyk testified that he had a good relationship with the PA Police Service and that this matter did not harm that relationship.

There are two aspects of reputation involved in this case. The first is in relation to the Service’s reputation with the Crown Prosecutor’s Office. The second is in relation to the public at large. While Robin says he would not have any problem working with Kulyk, the prosecutor has a different view of the matter. Kulyk said any working relationship he had with Robin ended with the Reimer case. He said, “That would have been the last memorandum that he would have ever received from me.” If Kulyk saw Constable Robin’s name as a witness on a case in future, he would assign the case to another prosecutor. Otherwise, Kulyk said he had a good relationship with the PA Police Service and the incident with Robin did not harm that relationship. I am satisfied on this aspect that the Service’s reputation with the Crown will not be damaged if Robin is permitted to remain on the force. As to the public at large, I do not agree that reinstating Robin would cause irretrievable harm to the Service. Robin’s conduct did not tarnish the Service as a whole. His return to the Service, if done with proper sanctions, will not harm the Service.

86

4. Employment history and experience Robin has well over ten years experience as a police officer, more than three of those with the PA Police Service. Without repeating significant detail here, PA Police Service written performance reviews for the years 2006 (partial year), 2007 and 2008, do not identify any serious shortcomings on Robin’s part and are quite complementary to him in several respects. Taking the 2008 review as an example, it includes comments to the effect that Robin understands the importance of teamwork, attends highly motivated, conducts himself professionally, has a strong work ethic, shows respect for citizens, writes good reports and is a valuable member on shift. Robin is commended for a good job in several specific instances. At other times he is complemented on his interviewing and interrogation skills. Because McFee issued the Order of Dismissal before the previous disciplinary matter would be adjudicated, Robin’s past record is essentially a clear one. McFee was not entitled to rely on past events in deciding to dismiss Robin, nor is he entitled to rely on those past events in relation to any discipline that might be substituted for the dismissal. 5. Recognition of the seriousness of the transgression Robin’s counsel submits:

• Robin was apologetic for his actions. He showed genuine remorse for what wrongdoing he may be found to have committed. At the conclusion of his evidence, Robin was apologetic and genuinely remorseful. He was not stubborn and unapologetic.

McFee’s counsel submits: • Robin may have been remorseful and apologetic at the end of the day,

“but it was a very long day”. Up to the point of the Order of Dismissal, and even thereafter, Robin took no responsibility for his actions and instead attempted to deflect attention to others. There is no doubt Robin came into this appeal hearing intent on proving he had done nothing wrong. As the hearing went on, however, I saw Robin gain some insight into the areas where he had acted inappropriately. By the end of the hearing, Robin acknowledged that Chief McFee and other members of the PA Police Service had nothing to do with the withdrawal of the Reimer Ticket. Robin accepted Kulyk’s testimony that Kulyk was the one who decided to withdraw the Reimer Ticket. Robin was clear that he regretted giving the witness phone numbers to Reiman and accepted that it was wrong to do so. He also said he regretted not being truthful with PCC Investigator Wade. He said he regretted not asking Kulyk for permission to prosecute the Reimer matter and not telling Sergeant Kellett what he was doing. He accepted that his prosecution of the Reimer Ticket at least created a perception of bias. He also understood that he should have checked policy. Robin agreed that McFee had nothing to do

87

with the decision to withdraw the Reimer Ticket. He said, “I think that’s fair. I could say that I apologize.” Having watched Robin during his testimony, I am satisfied that his regrets and apologies were genuine and not just an attempt to save his job. Robin has come a long way since January of 2010. It will be up to him in future to demonstrate he understands the seriousness of his Misconduct. 6. Disability or other relevant personal circumstances There is no evidence before me to suggest there were any issues of disability or other personal circumstances I should take into account, other than perhaps the overly influential role Ian Reiman played in how Robin behaved. 7. Provocation Provocation is not a factor in this case. 8. Need for deterrence For a police service, adherence to policy and process, respect for the chain of command and honesty are all very important. When dealing with disciplinary matters, it is important that any discipline imposed sends the message to the officer in question and to other officers as well, that similar conduct is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. The message of deterrence can be sent in this case through a penalty that brings home the seriousness of what Robin did. 9. Concerns arising from management’s approach Robin’s counsel submits:

• McFee took into account events that occurred in the past. McFee had brought disciplinary charges against Robin, but the appeal of those charges was never heard by a hearing officer because McFee issued the Order of Dismissal and terminated the appeal of the other charges. McFee, therefore, was not entitled to take those past events into account in deciding that remedial efforts would not be successful.

As I have already noted, the consequence of the Chief’s approach is that he is not entitled to rely on any past conduct as part of his grounds for dismissal. It is clear from the Order of Dismissal that the Chief did take past conduct into account. Had the Chief not taken that past conduct into account, he may have come to a different conclusion about the appropriate disciplinary response to Robin’s actions. 10. Consistency with previous penalties for similar infractions Robin’s counsel submits:

• The case law demonstrates that for circumstances to warrant dismissal, the misconduct must be so bad that the officer exhausted usefulness as a police officer.

• Overall, Robin’s conduct does not fall into the serious category that would warrant immediate dismissal. The Chief should have considered

88

reprimand, dockage of pay, a period of probation or something else and should have provided coaching. Robin deserves a second chance.

McFee’s counsel submits:

• Every case must be dealt with on its own unique facts. This is not a case where remedial efforts are suitable or would have any real prospect of success.

Counsel cited a number of cases where dismissal was found to be the appropriate remedy. These include the Saskatchewan cases:

McLane, supra; Hartwig and Senger v. The Chief of Police of the Saskatoon Police Service (July 28, 2008).

They also include cases from other jurisdictions, for example: Gulick v. Ottawa Police Service (June 14, 2010); Brudlo v. Toronto Police Service (October 19, 2005).

Counsel also cited cases where dismissal was found to be too harsh a penalty: Panteluk, supra; Regina Police Service v. Steveley (November 2001); Carmichael v. Ontario Provincial Police (1997098); Kelly v. Toronto Police Service (April 20, 2005); Cate v. Peel Regional Police Service (December 12, 19997); Guenette v. Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service (July 21, 1998); Hampel v. Toronto Police Service (August 14, 2008).

The common theme in all the cases is that because dismissal is the most serious punishment that can be imposed, it should be reserved for those cases where the conduct is no reprehensible that the officer is no longer useful to the service. While Constable Robin’s Misconduct is very serious, a review of these cases suggests that it falls short of the conduct required to warrant dismissal, but it is so serious that a harsh disciplinary penalty should be imposed. Conclusion and Order Having carefully considered all the factors, I have concluded Constable Robin’s Misconduct does not render him unsuitable to continue as an officer with the Prince Albert Police Service. While by the end of the hearing, Robin had come a long way, he will need to change his attitude significantly from the one he had when he was put on administrative leave in January 2010 or he will not have a future as a police officer. Robin should, however, be given a chance to demonstrate that he is suitable for police service. On the one hand, Robin’s Misconduct was very serious and calls for a very serious penalty. On the other hand, the other factors tend towards the conclusion

89

that dismissal is too harsh a penalty. I also note specifically that section 63 of the Act requires me to consider whether the deficiencies were brought to Robin’s attention and whether he was given a reasonable opportunity to bring his performance up to an acceptable standard. I am also required to consider whether Robin was given appropriate treatment, training, guidance, coaching or counseling to assist him. None of those things happened in this case. On the question of whether remedial measures would have been appropriate, I agree with McFee’s counsel that Robin has at times demonstrated stubbornness, self-righteousness and an unwillingness to accept another point of view. Robin was at times confrontational, aggressive and insubordinate. If these behaviors are a matter of attitude, then Robin should be capable of changing his attitude and behaving differently in future. If Robin’s behaviors are a matter of character, then Robin may not be able to change. At this point, we don’t know the answer yet because he hasn’t been given the chance yet to demonstrate he can behave differently in the future. A lengthy suspension and other remedial measures may well be the wake-up call Robin needs. The penalty should be relevant to the circumstances. It should signal to Robin and others that conduct of the kind in question will not be tolerated. This can be accomplished by a significant period of suspension. The penalty should also have a rehabilitative component, that is, it should include remedial measures to assist Robin for the future. In so far as suspension is concerned, Constable Robin’s conduct, in terms of seriousness, falls somewhere between that in Panteluk, supra (six month suspension) and Steveley, supra (thirteen month suspension). In all the circumstances, I find that a nine month suspension would be appropriate. In addition to the suspension, I find that a one year period of probation would be appropriate, commencing April 1, 2011 and concluding March 31, 2012. This probationary period is necessary to allow Constable Robin to demonstrate to the PA Police Service that he is suitable for police service. It will give him the opportunity to demonstrate he will not repeat similar conduct, that he can display a different attitude. It will give the PA Police Service the opportunity to provide appropriate training, coaching and guidance. While I do not intend to dictate precisely how the PA Police Service might re-orient Constable Robin to the Service, McFee should consider putting Robin with a coaching officer for a period of time and requiring Robin to spend some time reviewing the PA Police Service Policy Manual or perhaps having Robin prepare a presentation on PA Police Service Policy Manual for new recruits. I have earlier noted that my powers are enumerated in section 65 of the Act. Exercising those powers, I hereby order:

1. Constable Patrick Robin is reinstated to the Prince Albert Police Service effective December 17, 2010;

2. For the period March 16, 2010 to December 16, 2010, Constable Robin shall be considered suspended from service;

90

3. Constable Patrick Robin is not entitled to any portion of his salary or benefits for the period of the suspension, that is, from the date of his dismissal on March 16, 2010 to December 16, 2010;

4. Constable Patrick Robin will not accumulate seniority during the period of suspension;

5. Subject to paragraph 6, Constable Patrick Robin is entitled to the salary and benefits he would have earned from and after December 17, 2010;

6. Constable Patrick Robin shall provide to Chief Dale McFee a written record of any employment income he earned during the period from December 17, 2010 to date; and any such employment income shall be deducted from the salary and benefits payable pursuant to paragraph 5 above;

7. Constable Patrick Robin shall be placed on probation of a period of one (1) year from April 1, 2011 to March 31. 2012;

8. Chief McFee or his designate shall re-orient Constable Robin to the Service. This should include putting Robin with a coaching officer for a period of time on his return and requiring that Constable Robin spend some time reviewing the PA Police Service Policy Manual in a way that will be beneficial to Constable Robin and the Prince Albert Police Service;

9. I will remain seized of this matter in the event any issue arises in relation to implementation of this order.

Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 30th day of March, 2011.

_____________________

Anne M. Wallace, Q.C. Hearing Officer To: Constable Patrick Robin, Badge #168 Chief Dale McFee, Prince Albert Police Service Saskatchewan Public Complaints Commission