Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-1947.Szunejko.93-12-02 ~ -------~--- ------- --------- _:2'"r~ --------------------------------- ---(--- - -~----, ----~-------------c--- _, --.,,- - '" ." ~: .,'0'- 'iC-' ":~~;~~. . '.. - ~ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL 'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE , SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TOR()NTO (ONTARIO) MSG lZ8 FACSIMILE/TELf~COPJE (416) 326-1396 1947/92 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMEN~ BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Szunejko) Grievor - and.- The Crown in Right of ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer BEFORE: M Gorsky Vice-Chairperson E Seymour Member D. Montrose Member FOR THE A. Ryder UNION Counsel ~ Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE B Doherty EMPLOYER Staff Relations Officer Management Board Secretariat HEARING April 20, 1993 October 4, 18, 1993 ~ I ~ ------"~,--~---- -~--- --- --- ~ -- {----- - - t~-_. --.......,-.-------'----------- --.--------------------~ ~ \ ;.. ~u 1 D E CI S ION The Grievor, Henry Thaddius Szunejko, was at all material times employed in the Ministry of the Solicitor General as a member of the Ontario Government Protective Service as a Constable Security Officer 3, with his date of hire being July 14, 1986 By letter dated July 23, 1992 (Exhibit 6) , addressed to the Grievor from Donald A. Obonsawin, Deputy Solicitor General, the Grievor was dismissed from his employment for theft from his Employer Exhibit 6 is as follows Mr. H.T. Szunejko 390 Dawes Road, Apt. 310 Toronto, Ontario M4B 2E5 Dear Mr Szunejko I hereby dismiss you, pursuant to the Public Service Act, Section 22(3), for theft from your employer J' The termination of your employment takes effect on Monday, July 27, 1992, your last day of work is July 24, 1992 I regret the necessity of this action. Yours truly, Donald A. -Obonsawin Deputy Solicitor General On July 27, 1992 the Grievor filed a grievance claiming that he had been "dismissed without just cause," and requested that he "be reinstated to [his] position with full retroactive pay and benefits with ~nterest." J -- (""- ~---_. -_.~-. -~-- -~----- ----~.-.-------"r-''=,' --- ---....-, --....-.~,- --. .- -...............--.... c - ii\ ~ ~ij 2 On september 30, 1991, the Grievor was disciplined as a result of his having been inv6lved in an incident which is referred to in Exhibit 5, being a Personnel Evaluation Report prepared by J T Gordon, then Senior Supervisor, Satellites on August 28, 1991. At \ page 20f the Report, the fbllowing statement appears, which was ) not disputed: " As a result of an investigation it was confirmed . . . that Patrol Officer Szunejko was involved in a serious breach of '\ trust where through his own admission he stated he entered Quarter- Master Stores after hours and took an open holster for his own personal use. " I At the foot of page 3 of the said Report, R.J. Arbour, Queen's Park Services, ) Inspector, Manager - appended a statement dated September 4, 1991. In it, the following further statement appears "It is imperative that our members adhere to the rules and policy of this Service. I do not take lightly a member breaching the trust we are all sworn to uphold I sincere~y hope this member h'\ J keeps J.s promise that any similar situations will Il.Q..to occur. " I (Emphasis in original) By letter dated September 30, 1991, the Grievor was notified of the discipline to be imposed with respect (' ~ to the breach, above referred to. The letter (Exhibit 2) is to the Grievor from Mr. Obonsawin, and is as follows Mr. H. T. Szunejko 390 Dawes Road, #310 Toronto, Ont_ario M4B 2E5) Dear Mr Szunejko \ ._"-,_._-~_._-- ----~..-.-. c- --.. - ec;c-c ----- - --~~-~-_._------_._----- ( ~" ~ .r' 3 \ I am informed that you were involved in an incident of theft from the premises at whlch you are responsible for supplying security services. Your duties as ~ member of the Ontario Government Protective Service involve trust. This trust was breached by your actions. This is a serious incident and I find it necessary to impose discipline. I hereby impose a three ( 3 ) day suspension without pay to be served October 6 through 8, 1991. It is my expectation that you will in future conduct yourself in a manner consistent with your position and acceptable standards of conduct. I must advise-you that should there be any further concerns, you will be subject r to further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. Yours truly, Donald A_. Obonsawin ) Deputy Solicitor General The incidents, the discovery of which led to the Grievor's being terminated, came to light as a result of statements made by the Grievor's tnell -wife, Micheline Szunejko, to the Ontario provincial Police. The first of these statements (Exhibit 9) was \ given by Ms. Szunejko to Sergeant Ed Rae of the OPP on May 14, 1992, and it refers to her finding a quantity of articles, apparently the property of the Government of Ontario, that she I believed were improperly ln the possession of the Grievor Referred to were "red lights - with stop, which are plugged into a cigarette lighter with a 'magnet on the bottom' . . red portable I light . . . to set on a magnet, one has a curved mirror and one is domed in a teardrop shape. . . an IC-27SH 144MH2 all mode transceiver with Ontario Science Centre engraved on the top of the , ( \ ( - - ---- .- --~~~ ----T:~------ ---------,------ -_-~--_____________ ---I 1 'i. ~i'.. 4 case and covered by ~ repair label. . . . power supply - -ILP515 A.C. power supply is attached along with a number of other items." Exhibit 11 is a further statement mad_e by Ms. Szunejko to Sergeant Rae, dated May 19, 1992, which refers to certain other items, apparently the property of the Ontario Government, that she believed were improperly in the Grievor's possession. staff Sergeant Dave Moores, who ~s employed by the OPP, testified on behalf of the Employer. Staff Sergeant Moores testified that he serves as the Area Commander at Queen's Park with approximately 105 employees, including the Grievor, under him. The service that he supervises is responsible for the security of a number cjf government buildings in Toronto as well as the Training Academy of the OPP in Brampton. The employees who serve under him are classified as Security Officer 3's, are members of the Ontario Government Protective Services, wear uniforms so identifying them, and carry warrant cards identifying them as Special Constables. On July 29, 1991, Staff Sergeant Moores became aware of certain concerns relating to the Grievor's being in possession of property belonging to the ontario Government. On August l, 1991, he and Constable Harry Tries, an opp officer at the Queen's Park detachment, attended at 90 Harbord Street, where the Grievor then worked and questioned him with respect to allegations that he had property in his possession that he did not own, namely a holster and number shoulder ( a of flashes used by police officers The I ----------~.---------- --- ------ -------- --------- -(:-- -------- --- --- __~______u --- I (~-.,-- - - - -- -- --------- ri] 5 Grievor was sup~sed to have admitted th~ theft of the holster, but claimed that the shoulder flashes (which were those of the OPP and OGPS) had been given to him by someone in the tailor shop During \ an interview of the Grievor by Staff Sergeant Moores on August 14, 1991, the Grievor is said to have expressed some remorse over what he had done and indicated that he h~d taken the property approximately a year prior to the time of the interview Sergeant '-- Moores also stated that he had a further meeting in his office with the Grievor on August 26, 1991. At that time Staff Sergeant Moores expressed his ongoing concern about the subject of theft by security officers. The Grievor is supposed to have indicated his -. remorse for the incident and to have assured Staff Sergeant Moores that what had occurred was ~n isolated incident. Staff Sergeant Moores referred to Exhibit 3, being a '- memorandum dated October 13, 1989, addressed to "All OGPS Members - Area Command, from the Area Commander OGPS - Area Command concerning a number of matters including Also, there has been an increase in complaints of our members removing articles from offices for their own use, such as TV's, ~ettles, papers, or books, etc. .It has been and shall remain in effect our members shall not use or remove anything from offices we are tasked with securing. If it doesn't belong to you, leave it alonel (Emphasis in original) This memorandum had been brought to the Grievor's attention. ------~---- ----~-- ~-'- --- --- - ---_. - ~ ____~(----.--~-~---------L-------- ____,__~____~___~____________~ C -- -.' 'f \ 6 staff Sergeant Moores also referred to a mem9randufu from the Area Commander to OGPS personnel, dated November 15, 1989 (Exhibit 4) which contained the following statement Each member of the 0 G.P.S. has been sworn to uphold the law and as such entered into a position of trust which places each one of us in a very unique position - one not held by the average citizen. The bottom line is that OGPS members are not to enter offices other than on official business or during their regular rounds for security purposes. Also items or articles are not to be removed from offices by them nor shall they use equJ.pment which does not belong to the O.G~P.S. (Emphasis in original) This memorandum had also been brought to the attention of the Grievor. Staff Sergeant Moores was emphatic in stating that it had been brought home to all OGPS officers that they were not to take any items for their own use unless specifically authorized to do so by \ superior authority, even if the items appeared to be scrap or discarded Staff Sergeant Moores t~stified that he received a call at his office on May 14, 1992 from the Grievor's then wife, at which time she informed him that the Grievor had kept a large quantity of what appeared to be Ontario Government property, in what bad been their apartment, which property she felt he was not properly entitled to Staff Sergeant Moores then discussed the telephone call with his supervisor. An internal complaint form was completed and the Superintendent assigned the matter to an officer in No 5 District , ~ - i -.---......,. --... --- ~--~~-----++- ---_.,.~ ._--- -.-- -_..~,-_.. '--' - .-...,......--+. -- -T-~---"- .----------- _... - +......,....;.-.---~---~-~..- (, ,-, .,.~,.,~-" ':~'~~;, "..:~ '~ ( 7 Headquarters of the opp in Aurora, Ontario. After he commenced the proce<iure by filing the internal complaint form, staff Sergeant Moores had nothing further to do with the investigat.ion or the assignment of the ipvestigating officer. His n~xt involvement occurred when the results of the investigation were made known to him. This resulted in the Grievor being removed from his work location. staff Sergeant Moores had numerous discussions with personnel ~n the Employees Relations Branch concerning the course of action he should take as a result of the information received that indicated that the Grievor was unlawfully in possession of Ontario Government property 'the initial decision was to keep the Grievor under close supervision, ) however, Staff Sergeant Moores ind~cated that he was not "comfortable with this idea as Mr~ Szunejko had breached a trust and I was concerned with the credibility of the organization if he was allowed to continue to work. II staff Sergeant Moores stated th~t he then prepared a letter to his superiors suggesting that the Grievor be terminated, arid that this should be done without waiting for the completion of the criminal proceedings that had been commenced. / This led to the preparation of Exhibit 6, being the letter of dismissal, above referred to. In cross-examination, Staff Sergeant Moores indicated that the Grievor was not permitted to reta~n the holster, above referred to However, he was uncertain as to what had happened to the shoulder I -- - ~._~ '"-',..- ..___.-------'-__.l~_~__........._____ ( f C-- --,- :j '~ 8 flashes that were in th,e Grievor's possession He acknowledged that the Grievor had stated that the shoulder flashes had been given to him by a tailor employed by the EmpJ.oyer When the suggestion was put to him that the Grievor waSjl, on the basis of I this explanation, permitted to retaln the flashes, Staff Sergeaiit i Moores had difficulty recalling what had happened to them, but added that the main cqncern of the Employer at that time related to I the unlawful taking of the holster ) Also, in cross-examination, staff Sergeant Moores was adamant in stating that security officers, such as the Grievor, were, withQut express quthority from a representative of management, not I to take any items for their own use even if they appeared to be scrap or were slated for disposal. He also stated that Government property which could no lohger be used and which was slated for disposal would be donated to such charitable agencles as the J S'al vation Army, although he acknowledged that such items as holsters would not be disposed of ln this fashion. He also acknowledged that none of the items listed in the opp property report (Exhibit 8) 'would be disposed of by being turned over to charitable agencies such as the Salvation Army. Further in cross-examination, Staff Sergeant Moores indicated that when he recommended the dismissal o~ the Grievor he had not \ given much thought to whether the items listed in Exhibit 8 had been taken by the Grievor after September of 1991, but considered -"~ -_.~ -....,....,.... --"-.- - -~-_. --~--- -_.-- ---------------------- -~-- c-"---------- - _._-_._.__.~,~- -~-,-- -- - ---- ,- 9 this to be a possibility. He was also of the view that if the full extent of the unaut-horized taking of property by the Grievor had ) been known at that time, he wo~ld havebeert terminated. " We are satisfied that the items listed in Exhibit 8 (marked as Appendix l) had been taken by the Grievor prior to the time of hlS 1991 discipline. We are also satisfied that at the time he was disciplined in 1991, the Employer was unaware of his having taken th~ items listed in that exhibit, and we are further satisfied that if it had been aware of the true facts, the Grievor would not have ( ) - been given a j mere suspension, but would have been discharged because of the large number of items involved. In crqss-examination, staff Sergeant Moores stated that his decision to recommend the termination of the Grievor would not have been changed if he h~d been aware of the fact that the items redovered (Exhibit 8) had been taken prior to September of 1991. -' \ Staff Sergeant Moores acknowledged that apart from the / Grievor's having taken the items which led to his initial suspension and subsequent termination, and a discussion with him concerning a perceived attendance problem, there were no concerns relating to his performance, and he regarded him to be an, "average" I officer. J:- --"'- ".~--~-_._. --- _ ( ---- --- --~- -- ~ -------- -~,-,-- -~-_.~ ---- C"'-- -. 10 Sergeant Ed Rae, stationed at the opp Aurora detachment, being the Number 5 District Headquarters, testified that he conducted the investigation of the alleged thefts, listed in Exhibit 8, that were 'I attributed to the Grievor. He testified that on Thursday the 14th day of May, 1992, at approximately 6 20 p m., he received a telephone 9all from the Staff Sergeant on duty concerning the complaint received from the Grievor's then wife. He then interviewed the Grievor's then wife and her mother on that date at approximately II 10 p.m , and was informed by the Grievor's then wife about the items she had found under her bed and in a two- \ drawer file cabinet at the residence she had lived ~n with the Grievor at Apartment 3l0, 390 Dawes Road, Toronto. At approximately 12:43 a.m., on May 15, 1992, Serg~ant Rae made a list oJ of the items that were turned over to him, which he testified appeared to have come from the Ontario Science Centre or from the OPP office at 125 Lakeshore Boulevard, Toronto, and which appears as page one of the Property Report (Exhibit 8 ) prepared by Sgt. Rae. He also took a written statement from the Grievor's then wife, read it back to her, and she initialled certain changes to it. He gave a receipt to the Grievor's then wife for the items that were taken by him. Page 1 of Exhib~t 8 refers to a quantity I of nine items which are numbered from 1 to 8 in the report. ~ As a result of what he found following his above-noted attendance on the Grievor's then wife and her mother, Sergeant Rae had a discussion with his Supervisor and the Detective Sergeant at --- - -- -r-~ ----,---- - --- ------------~----~--- -- --------- F-;;;.;----c-----~----- ----------------- Ii. -. 11 the desk at the Aurora detachment and received instructions to continue his investigation. He obtained a search warrant to search" the Grievor's residence in Pickering at 920 Reyton Boulevard. As \ a result of his attendance at the premises, he recorded items I numbers 9 through 43 in a Property Report, also being part of Exhibit 8, dated May 19, 1992, May 20, 1992 and June 2, 1992. One hundred and forty-five items were recorded ln the last noted r property re,ports. Further in his examination-in-chief, Sergeant Rae explained that he obtained items 9 to 31 listed in Exhibit 8 at the Grievor's residence in Pickering, and it was after he left that residence that he returned to the residence of the Grievor's then wife on Dawes Road, at approximately 4 35 p.m. on May 19, 1992, to continue his investi~ation, and wa's invited in without the necessity of his I having a search warrant. At that time, he interviewed the Grievor's then wife in the presence of her mother and of Robert a fellow employee of the Grievor, and apparently a friend of j Kerr, the Grievor's then wife. At that time, Sergeant Rae obtained a supplementary statement from the Grievor's then wife, which is dated May 19, 1992 (Exhibit 11). On the 20th of May, 1992, Sergeant Rae, assisted by Constable , j Terry Shand of the OPP, executed the search warrant at the Grievor's residence in Pickering. The Grievor was co-operative and invited Sergeant Rae and Constable Shand into his house and did not I ~"_____--'__m____.""'___ "U~~_'~_""_' ._____~ '- ----_.~~..,-------~---_._- -- - - n_n e=-=-- -------.---- ------ --- --->-- --....-.-..~ ----.- .~' li 1 12 object to a search of the premises. At that time, items listed in Exhibit 8 as numbers 32 to 41 were obtained A statement (Exhibit 10) was then taken from the Grievor. The ~tatement is l.n the handwriting of Constable Shand who wrote its introductory portion, and who then asked the Grievor the questions as recorded in the statement, which statement was signed by the Grievor. The statement commenced at 8 42 a.m. , was completed at 8 58 a.m. and was initialled at 9 02 a.m. Constable Shand cautioned and fully informed the Grievor of his rights l,n accordance with the requirements of the law' prior to making his statement, and he was t said to have been completely co-operative. In his statement the Grievor stated that I In 1987 or '88 I was interested in ham >radio and the Ontario Science Centre had a set that they weren't us~ng. One afternoon I entered the storage area and obtained the item 'cause I was interested in ham and couldn't afford a set so I took it. In late '90 or early '91 I was posted at-125 Lakeshore filling in at the south garage. I took some parts of red lights and put them together and took them home. The Grievor was asked if he had permission to take any of the items, and he replied that he did not. On June 2, 1992, Sergeant Rae attended on the Grievor, who was helpful in furnishing information with respect to who might be responsible for thefts at(the Ontario Science Centre and at the George Drew building. At that time, Sergeant Rae obtained from the Grievor's residence item numbers 42 and 43 of Exhibit 8, being handcuffs and a handcuff pouch. ,r -~-_.- (-- ---------,.--~------ ------~----l~~--------- -.~---- ------------------- : '-i " 13 As a result of the investjgatiort conducted by Sgt. Rae, the Grievor was charged with the criminal offense of being "1n possession [of stolen goods] under $1000.00," which charge was laid at Whitby, the matter being later transferred to the Provincial Court in Oshawa. The items covered were 32 to 41, both inclusive. recovered from the Grievor's residence in Pickering Later, the Grievor was also charged with "possession [of stolen goods] over $1000.00" and "possession [of sto! en goods] under $1000.00" with respect to the property removed from the Dawes Road residence, the charges being laid in Toronto. As a result of evidence given by the Grievor, one item, made up of. soft body armour, was removed from the charge. Sergeant Rae testified that the matter, as it relates to the last mentioned item,is still under investigation. All of the charges were ultimately tried together 1n the Provincial Court, Criminal Division, at co.llege Park in Toronto. On November 18, 1992, and it was acknow~edged that the Grievor pled I guilty to the "possession over" charge before Judge Jay Mercer On January 5, 1993 he pled guilty to the "possession under" charges, which was also acknowledged. On January 19, 1993, the Grievor received a suspended sentence of two years' probation and was required to perform 200 hours of community service at the rate of 10 hours per month. \ -'--'--'-~-'------'---'-"-- .-.-----.--.--..,-'---- -- -- ---'"':':""~--- -:--------, --'-'. ~. ~._-- ------.. - - '- C-~"- -- .~ -~ .~~ 14 _. Sergeant Rae reported the results of his ongoing investigation to staff Sergeant Moores and to Staff Sergeant Moores' superior, Inspector Arbour, but had no part in the decision to discharge the Grievor. ( The Grievor testified that he was first hired to work as a ) Security Guard at the Ontario Science Centre on ~uly 14, 1986, and that on July 11, 1989 was successful in a competition for a constab~e's position with the OGPS. The Grievor did~ n9t deny that he took the items listed J..n Exhibi t 8, with the exception of the items noted. He regarded mOst of the items taken by him as having been either scrap or items which were otherwise to be discarded or disposed of. -He testified that the large number of uniform flashes listed in Exhibit 8 were \ given to him by persons working in the Tailor Shop. He also testified that he had oeen given to understand that there was nothing untoward in the actions of the tailor and that his receiving the flashes was perfectly proper. He testified, further, that it was a common practice for such flashes to be traded by officers who collected them as a hob~y. Noone from the Tailor Shop was called to substantiate the Grievor's evidence. \ \ The position of the Grievor was suppo~ted by Anthony Petti, who testified on his behalf Mr. Petti is an employee of the Ontario Science Centre and is a Lead Hand Electrician in the - ---~ _. --- ("- --- - ----'------~c;:-"; --------:---- ----- --~---------------~--------------- \.,~:} ~~., i!:, -' ( 15 Electrical Department. He testified that there was a practioe at the Ontario Science Centre that after an exhibit was no longei;' to I be used, it was disassembled and its parts sent to different shop~ to see whether they might be capable of further uSe. If they could be used again they were stored; an example given being that of an electric motor, which, if it was capable of being used again would ; be placed in stores. Mr. Petti stated that most of the parts from the exhibits could not be used again. These parts were placed in a separate 1 area and were then either discarded or taken by employees who were said to have been informed, although not by management, that they .J could be removed from the premises. According to Mr~ Petti, there ( \ ) was a wide rang~ in the value of the/discarded parts, from very inexpensive to very expensive. He referred to a very expensive I robotics machine that was outdated and not kept in stores for further use. He also referred to a morse code keyboard and a five key teleg~aph as representing fairly expensive items that could not again be used in exhibits, but could be taken away by employees. \ Mr. Petti emphasized, however, that the practise of removing parts and equipment that could no longer ~e used in exhibits did not have any "official sanction." He added that he could not authorize an employee to appropriate parts for his/her use, although he inqicated that it was his view that "at least middle management was aware of the practice," but added that he was not --- ---_._~ -------- ----------- (0:==---- --------------- ---------- ------------------ ------ - .- -- ~------- ,i. i' 16 able to say whether the Director General had any knowledge of its existence. ) In cross-examination, Mr. Petti acknowledged that the so- called scrap parts and equipment that employees were permitted to take home with them were Ontario Government property. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Jain, who is a Senior Psychiatrist at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, and an Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, testified on behalf of the Grievor. Exhibit 12 is a report prepared by pro Jain with respect to his treatment of the Grievor, and is as follows Re: Henry T. SZUNEKO [sic] 23-Dec-1992 ( I examined Mr. Szuneko [sic] on 26-Nov-92 and the follow ups. He was functioning well prior to 1987. Then his marriage lof two years started to crumble His mother in law also moved in with them, making the sit~ation from bad to worse. He felt lonely an~ alienated in his own house. In 1989 his wife moved out leaving him with the pressures of parenting. Later on in 1991 he was shocked to discover that his wife was having an affair with his best friend. He has been charged with possession of stolen goods. This activity occured [sic] between 1988 and - 1991. PSYCHODYNAMICS Background history shows good adjustment in the past. During the period begining [sic] from 1987, he was subjected to a series of life stressors, that together became overwhelming. Unable to cope, he felt trapped. It was in this state of mental desperation and fatigue that his unlawful behaviour oC"cured [ sic] . The emotional disturbance compromised his " -. .----- ---- ~~- .-- --- (;C_ T-;::-=-~~---'------------------------~------- '.. 17 ability to exercise proper judgement and to function rationally. He is feeling quite remorseful for such behaviour. DIAGNOSIS Marital stress and Adjustment Disorder. Recommendations - Psychological Counselling and Therapy With focus on insight, stress management and impulse control. He shows willingness to cooperate with the program. With the ongoing therapy and monitoring of behaviour, the risk for recurrence of unlawful activity is minimal, given the fact that such activity is uncharacteristic of his personality. R.C Jain M.D. F.R.C.P (c) Dr. Jain testified that prior to completing Exhibit l2 he saw the Grievor on November 26, December 3, December 17 and December 23, 1992. He further stated that he last saw the Grievor on October 7, 1993, and has seen him every three weeks since the 23rd of December, 1992. After reviewing Exhibit 12, Dr. Jaih testified I that nothing has happened since that document was prepared to change his assessment of the Grievor. Mr. Ryder, on behalf of the Grievor, informed us that his position was that the allegations against the Grievor were of a most serious nature and that, accordingly, there was a heavy onus on the Employer to establish them. Mr. Ryder said, given the nature of the allegations, the onus was not merely to satisfy us, on a balance of probabilities, which he referred to as "50 per cent + 1, " and that a higher standard applied, based on the seriousness - - --------- ---~-------~-~------------------- -----(':::-::.------'-~ - ---.-- - -- ._---- ---'-_.~ ,. '. ~- .' 18 ) of the consequences for the Grievor. It was Mr. Ryder's position that the Employer was asking the Board to allow the imposition of , standards of conduct on the Grievor that had not been imposed on o-!-her employees. Mr. Ryder also asked us to consider the evidence of Dr. Jain in assessing the Gri~vor's behaviour, and to conclude that when the items were taken, the Grievor was suffering from a lack of judgment based on his psychological distress. The Grievor's behaviour, in not acknowledging the extent of the articles taken by him_ at the time he was disciplined in 1991 for taking the holster, was also said to be as a result of his "marital stress and adjustment disorder." Mr. Ryder referred to a morse code keyboard taken by the Grievor as having been equipment abandoned by the Employer, which could not, therefore, claim any property interest in it. This item was said to have been designated as "garbage" and was subject to the practice permitting such items to be taken from the Ontario Science Centre. Mr. Ryder stated that the Employer's referring to the Grievor as having been guilty of theft of ontario Government property represented a mis-characterization of the facts, and failed to address the Employer's responsibility in neglecting to alter the practice the Grievor is said to have relied upon. ~~----._..._~".........;.- ---- --.....:-......~ -:...-._--~ -- -(:~ c--:-- -~-- -.-.-- ~---_.+._-~----.""'-----:--.-----'._.----- ..( . to:. ;) I 19 Mr. Ryder also referred to items 4, 5 and 6 of Exhibit 8, being certain manuals that were found in the possession of the Grievor Some. of these were said to have been delivered to the Grievor when he was on courses. Mr. Ryder commented on the fact that no witness from the opp testified as to the need for these manuals to be returned to the OPP. We were also asked to note that if the Grievor is found to have improperly taken these items, that he did so when subject to the emotional trauma described by Dr. Jain. Mr. Ryder also referred to items 12, 33 and 34 of Exhibit 8, being different kinds of signal lights taken by the ~rievor. Mr. Ryder stated that we should find that these items had been abandoned components that had been left on benches, which the I Grievor had assembled and improved. We were asked to find that the Employer had failed to establish that these items had not .been - abandoned. ,- We were also asked to find that the soft body armour (item 7) had not been taken by the Grievor, and we were asked to note the evidence of the Grievor that he already had been issued a set of soft body armour. We were also asked to note that the Grievor's former wife had a boyfriend who worked along with the Grievor, and that there was no evidence to show that the body armour was either not his or had not been taken by him. \. ~"': --- -- ------------------- -,- --(;;;.-c:------------~ --+~._- -_._---~.._-,_.-.- -~--..-..- ' ,- i' ~. ~ ~ .. '~ 20 We were also asked to note that item number 35 of Exhibit 8, being a stun device, and item number 16, being a traffic sergeant's \ badge, had been withdrawn by the Employer as items relied upon by it Mr. Ryder stated that we should find no significance in the fact that the Employer was unaware of the full extent of the I articles taken by the Grievor at the time he was disciplined in I September of 1991 for taking a holster, and he emphasized that I there was no evidence that the Grievor had taken any items I subsequent to that time. The fact- that the Grievor had not taken I any items subsequent to the imposition of discipline (Exhibit 2) I was said to represent evidence that that the ori:ginal discipline had worked, and there was no reasonable basis for imposing further discipline. We were also asked to consider Dr. Jain's evidence that- the Grievor's actions were "uncharacteristic of his personality."( Mr. Ryder ~mphasized that the Grievor had been gived a second chance when the earlier discipline was imposed in September of 1991, and he was not asking for a third chance. Mr Ryder stated that this was not a case where the Grievor had "blown a chance that he had previously been gi~en." I ~ -~ -~--- -~-----------~~--- ------c~~---- ,-- ----~_.... ( ('~ ---..._-"-"- --- '. ~ 21 We were also asked to take into consideration the consequences of out upholding the discharge, not only on the Grievor but on his children, whom he will have difficulty in support~ng if he is not reinstated. We were further asked to take into consideration the evidence of the "vindictiveness" of the Grievor's former wife, whose actions were said to be based on a desire to "get b~ck at the Grievor. " The Grievor was said to have already "taken a heavy 1 hit. II Accordingly, we were asked to allow the gr1evance and reinstate the Grievor with "some loss of compensation. " We were also asked to note that there were some positions where the Grievor could work at the MacDonald Block that would not bring him into contact with situations where there might be a recurrence of his previous behaviour. Management's concerns were said to be capable of being addressed through its power to assign the Grievor. We were also asked to ~ote the commendation given to the Grievor in Exhibit 7, when he reported the existence of an open ;vault l containing money. ./ Counsel' for the Employer stressed the fact that the nature of the position occupied by the Grievor imposed on incumbents a special, and I higher, obligation of trust. An important obligation of members of the OGPS was the safeguarding and securing of Government property. We were asked to disregard the fact that some of the property would likely be disposed of without any financial gain to the Employer. The important fact was said to be that the "- property remained Government property and the Grievor knew that if ,.- "- ~-~ ._---- ---------- _.~-~,~ ----~---~,--,---"---_.._---"------------ \ (.: .- 22 he wished to take any of the property home with him, he should first obtain permission from someone in management. We were asked to disregard the evidence of Mr. Petti and to n<;>te that he acknowledged that the items that he testified about remained Government property. We were asked to find that Mr Petti's evidence was insufficient to establish that management condoned the alleged practice testified to by him We were also asked to find that Dr Jain's conclusions concerning the basis for the Grievor's actions were entirely founded on the Grievor's statements made to him, and there was no independent investigation conducted by Dr. Jain to substantiate his conclusions. I Counsel for the Employer emphasized that if the Employer had \ I known of the full extent of the Grievors taking of Government I property in September of 1991, he would have been terminated The ( I only reason that he was not terminated at that time was because he had lied to his Employer about the full extent of the items taken by him, and he should not be permitted to benefit from this wrongful act. ( - ---.- '-'-I~----."'" ..-- -.. --- ~~. ---~---"-- -~------T-= -~-~------- ------------- -- ---~~_..._._.~- r= .- ---.-- - - - \.~ >1 23 Decision -------- We are satisfied that, with the exception of a few items that were not improperly taken by the Grievor, or were his own property, the balance of the items listed in Exhibit 8 were taken by him and Ithat they were to his knowledge Government property, even if many of them appeared to have been of no further use to the Employer and I I although they might have been later discarded. We also find that there is a special obligation of trust imposed upon employees ln the OGPS, based on thelr fundamental obligation to safeguard and secure government property. / We find that the Grievor was in no doubt that the property that he took was Ontario Government property and that he had no right to take it without permission from management. We are not satisfied that there was a well-known practice tolerated by the Employer whereby employees could, without permission from management, take for themselves property which appeared to be no longer required by the Employer. We were also affected by the fact of the Grievor's guilty pleas in the criminal proceedings, above referred to, which related to the property listed in Exhibit 8. In Sopinka, Lederman, Bryant The Law of Evidence in Canada (Butterworth's - 1992), under the - ! - -- ---~_.----_. ----( --- - --- ~ ,.n (:;;'-:;:---~--- -+-..,-~~----:---- --,.~.~-~--------------:-._-----~. - -, 1.:'>'. '- .) 24 heading of "What Constitutes an Admission?" (at p 284), the authors state i / An admission may take many forms. A plea of guilty in a criminal proceeding or a _proceeding arising out of the commission of a provincial offense is considered an admission which is admissible as such in subsequent civil proceedings. "- The authority for the statement is set out Cromarty v. Monteith (1957) , 8 D L.R. (2d) 112 (B C.S C.); English v. Richmond; Laing v. Richmond, [1956] S.C.R. 383, 3 D.L.R (2d) 385 (Ont.). Also at p.284~ the authors state As in the case of all admissions except those known as "judicial or formal admissions", the party who made it may later lead evidence at trial to reveal the circumstances under which the admission was made in order to reduce its prejudicial effect ( In the case before us -there was no ~vidence of this kind. Further at p.284, the authors state It should be noted that before a plea of guilty is admissible in the subsequent civil action, the latter / proceeding must have arisen out of the same or similar circumstances which form the basis of the criminal charge. ..) The case relied upon in support of the immediately preceding assertion is Hellyer Farms Ltd. v. Biro, [1971] 2 O.R. , 583, 18 D.L.R. (3d) 527 (Co. ct . ) . The evidence before us indicates that there was nothing in the circumstances under which the admission was made in the criminal proceeding which might reduce its prejudicial effect. Any attempt - I --- - ____h____ __h________ ---c::~ ---"--- -----~~---~------------------"-_._ __(_____-___________"__u _, ___~___ 'j. "- ~\ 25 - on the part of the Grievor to -now state that the items were abandoned or were taken by him pursuant to an accepted practice represents an impermissable attempt to resile from the admissions and is not an example of "circumstances under which the admission was made" which might "reduce its prejudicial effect. " ( 0 We are satisfied that Mr. Petti's evidence was, to a considerable extent, an exercise in wishful thinking. There were no specific examples given of anyone in management tolerating the alleged "practice." It appears to us that the "practice" was carried out as long as no one in management observed it in operation. We would have expected more than the bald assertion with respect to the practice in order to establish its validity. If it were a true practice, we would have expected the names of persons in management who had, by their toleration, assisted in the e~tablishment of the practice. We do not doubt that there was an informal practice whereby some employees too~ items in the manner described by Mr. Petti. It is also quite _possible that employees considered what they were doing as being harmless because the Employer apparently had no further use for the items taken by them. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the Grievor was aware, by his own admission, that he could not take any items without the consent of management, and that he was not singled out for special treatment. ( --- ~_.__._.. --".._-~-"--'._-'-- -_._~- (::- ---- - (--- ---- ~ -. -" ~---......----- '-- I :\~?';- l , 26 Although Dr. Jain testified that he stands behind his asse~sment contained in Exhibit 12 that "The risk for occurrence of unlawful activity is minimal, given the fact that such activity is uncharacteristic of [the Grievor'sl personality," his assessment was limited to the Grievor's own subjective assessment of the facts that led to his being terminated. There may be instances where a person might be held not to be responsible for his actions because of "marital stress and adjustment disorder," however, we are not satisfied that Dr. Jain had sufficient facts to render a decision that we could rely upon. We emphasize that our conc.l usion concerning Dr. Jain's diagnosis does not represent our taking a negative view of his (qualifications as a psychiatrist nor in the way he utilized his professional skill to deal with the Grievor and arrive at his conclusion. Our concern is that the information relied upon by Dr. Jain wa's, to some extent, based on the self- serving statements pf the Grievor, and the doctor did not have an I opportunity to test any of the~e statements by interviewing other relevant witnesses to the Grievor's behaviour I \ I I Nor does our conclusion mean that we do not accept the fact J that the Grievor was extremely upset as a result of the marital stress that he was experiencing. We are, however, unable to regard the mar_i tal problems experienced, by him as furnishing a satisfactory explanation for his behaviour or as a basis for his : being exculpated. \ "--.... - --- "-- "-... ------.--------.. ----~-[:':' --.-.- ~~_..~ ~--------_.- '. 27 Given the special obligations of trust of members of the OGPS, , they must be held to a higher standard of behaviour in relation to the property they are required to safeguard than are other employees. Exhibit 3 is very clear :i,.n informing all OGPS members that they "shall not use or remove anything from offices [they] are , tasked [sic] with securing. If it doesn't belong to you, leave it alonel" (Emphasis in original) Exhibit 4 similarly informs members of the OGPS of management's concerns relating to "breaching security for [an "- employees] personal use" and OGPS personnel were informed that any breach would "be severely dealt with" (Emphasis in original) In Air Canada and National Association of Machinists <Teixeira grievance), unreported, a decision of M G. Mitchnick dated August 26, 1993, the grievor, who was an eight year employee, was discharged for stealing a quantity of gasoline from his employer. The termination took place after the grievor was 4iscovered by the police and charged~ There was evidence that the grievor had been under stress at home and had, before the theft, attempted to obtain a four month leave of absence without pay Because of an administrative error, his request for leave was approved two days after he was fired. There was evidence that the grievor had \ ,'., - - ---~._---,----~_. --- _._~._---- ._~-_. -.'~ c~ c-~ -. ----- - ~-- ......._+-~-- -- . -,' 28 serious marital difficulties, and the union argued that the stress experienced by the grievor caused him to steal the gasoline. The arbitrator, in endeavour~ng to weigh the respective interests' and equities that had to be balanced between the employer and the grievor, concluded that, in the light 9f the steps taken by the grievor by way of self-help, an opportunity should be afforded him to renew his relationship with the employer without back pay ( for the 17 months he was out of work. Although the arbitrator found that the offense in the case before him was a calculated and serious one, his decision to ameliorate the penalty was based on what he found to be the compelling and distinctive factors \. the grievor's favour that ~n made out a case for a "second chance". In the case before us, there was no evidence of the Grievor doing anything by "way of self-help" to deal with the stress at home, and his seeking professional help was somewh~t coincidental with his being discharged. We cannot avoid being affected by the fact that the Grievor never had any intention of informing the Employer of the true extent of the ontario Government property in his possession in September of 1991. We were asked to ignore what the Grievor had done because he is said to have lived-up to his undertaking not to ~ (,~, --- _..~ --- -~~.._-- ------- ---- (>:~-;. -------- . . '. --_.._~._~-~.._--_._-_._---,---~------_.-...+---. - '0 ~f i> \.- ., 29 take any further government property after his being disciplined (Exhibit 2). To do so would ignore the fact that the Grievor would likely have been terminated if the full extent of his actions had ,been known at that time. We emphasize that in the case of a member of the OGPS there is a special obligation, which the Grievor was well aware of, not to appropriate to himself Ontario Government f property, even if it appeared to be discarded or abandoned, whatever its value, without obtaining prior permissions from management. ~ If we were dealing with a grievor with a lesser responsibility for safeguarding the Employer's property, other considerations might have been brought to bear as they were in the Air Canada case. As this is not such a case, and in the absence of other extenuating circumstances that might bear on our decision, the grievance must be denied. ( We only wish to add that the Union focussed most of its case on whether the Grievor had, in fact, taken property belonging to the Employer. A significant portion of the argument made on behalf of the Union was that the Employer had not demonstrateq this to be the case. Even in the absence of the Grievor~s convictions in the criminal proceedings, we would have found sufficient evidence, employing the standard suggested by Mr. Ryder, to establish that the Grievor had improperly taken property belonging to the Employer. However, the fact of his pleading guilty amounts to an .~-- _... -- ----- --- -------------~-- cir~------' --~-----,-- .~_._- -(~--<:.- --' _.~-..._- -_.'.~. I '. " I... 30 r admission, and there was no evidence presented which satisfied us that this admission could be resiled from. We are sorry for the Grievor and believe that he seriously regrets his actions. Nevertheless, for the reasons expressed above, the combination of his unlawful actions and his special ( responsibility with respect to trustworthiness in securing and safeguarding government property has caused us to arrive at our decision to deny the grievance. - Dated a~ Toronto this ?nd day of December, 1993. ~~~~ -'- ~ M.Gorsky - Vice Chairperson "I Dissent" (dissent attached) E. Seymour - -Member ,: ~ \~ ., cc- \I \ .;::==- --::? -- D. Montrose - Member - I J I> -- ~ ~ ( APPENDIX r -- (' -------.---- ~ " ~.. _~cQ ----- --'---~- - - C'HarlO \;;, I - P OV/nCIJI \ P De rt 1/ ;~'I--; C C rt Rapoor[ LJe ~ -' ,- I I Pcllce DetJCnm\;!fH l~ f\Jo NQ .1~ :0$51 Hano ;Jnnr or wnle '" '1empllr Ie present ao~ ~ menl J Iii r-a,f' \.) )....,..( 1".L- ::>'/7i Property Status, Oblels EVidence Satekeeplng D:;J~27%~ _0;/;:; ~ caGe 011 aelacnemenr o Recovereo' 0 Found !1I11seS comme o Delenu~ Recouv'es irouves preuve en heu sur Where Property Founol Lieu ou les ":01 ele ('ouves <~"./ ;r-O 3 'I C7 .tO~~?.s ?.., )@~ ;r"..Po Surname of/Nom de lomllle Given Names/ Prenc,,",s DOwner PrOP",}1 alte Home Address of Owner I Adresse au propnelalte Surname of IN om de famille Given Names/ Preno,.,-s o Finder Invenreu, Home Address of Finder' AOresse Oe I'lflvenreu' Item Number Quanlltv Descr:Dtlon IIndlcate Orana name or make. mOdel. seflal l1umoer style. COlour. Slle etc,l .",.f(JII(J'r>t .".f1 ~ ~...,l'tl"-;" '#1)'"'' ....fI.' Oblern' QuanltlB Oeser/anon Ilna1QllBZ la "'aroue. '8 mfldele. (e nO de serre. Ie stvle. '/a ,:ouJeur, /8 talle. ere i ~... =-'1" :.".t..D.(M.fll\ ,:~., :'. :1.'f."'''C'' '0".,/0... '" s~7(;~ 0 J ;>;2... 3 ... I j /~../ /71/:1-. ~....... /'10.?4' ~"/Sc..'.EJ ;//t(' I~ - ,2?..f.~ " ~ I I~ -/ls'/S .e<... Ptl~ #,~ S~I'/'~f :2 3g9i 3 ~~,;.N'.;",N'- /,:).t', v It/)- (... e':. t:>"v ~ '" '" ,... t. I /~ 1"';.:1" ..ELr;S, ,;)~;P ..-J- ) - a;,.5.fJ./ /,..J.oJ ~/'ha'~ /7..f)"/J<~'-"l.. OP~' S I 7fR,.(~s-rf- ,R~ ,t,rE.,D-diA /.eo <:. ~;p.,,f~~ /"?.NV~ #k- t ) o~~ ""'/1"'1<" c:.. ,(};:~;,l!:or r:Jf':'~ :r~",,,..,,....~ ",,('fI1ji~,1""" /'~r.:r ~A<,...;:r /~r" 777'" 7 ~..,F""'~-~.oY- j()~H~~ .:$"~ "t'~ S ~;S7(. S. ,j::' -0- S ...~'~..<'" /vB, I tl;313.RR/Jr:J/ry L1~:J.." / g"..,,,~ /9tr~ S-e~#'-~ 37"'0$ ~:~~1 - , ,... n .0- ,./ ,,,,,,, t. 'Sa cD,.. tf.' /.,..~ V' r,,I' 11";. .IY J Date Property Received Storage Location Rank and Badge No_ Date de rllceptton des ob/els l.ieUd'~:~e ,&J.--;f" Grade er n. matncule /'I. fJ." ~G ';<t' OP~ - 7~J'" Diary Date/Dale de conS~"0r q /~~.HY DL/ 1 6 "'~ V' NOTE: Blforl sIgnIng p1easlre.d follOWIng carefullvl REMAROUE: LIftI'lIImlivl/ml/nr .v.nt dl/ sIgne, aUIT CLAIM: BeIng thllawful ownar of thl prOPlrty descllbld above I hereby relinQuIsh all righi, RECEIPT I herebY acknowledglrlcelpt 01 the abovl described proplrty from 1'HE _ONTARIO IIUe, Claom and pOSSISSlon to thl oroperty and dlclarlth.t' am .bsolute/y abandOning the propelly PROVINCIAL POLICE and em sar,sfied w,rh its cond",on, I understand thaI I ain obhged 10 rtlurn the with no Intention ever 01 reclaiming It. orooelly to th. owner II he IS found, RENONCIA TION: Eranr 11/ proo"lra", ,Ig.' des Ob,l/IS d4cflls c/-dl/sSUS,I' rl/noncl/ per la presl/nte b RECU: Par I. prlSl/nl',l' dIe/are avolt ,,~u d,la Surl/II dl/ rOm."o II/s oO/els dlcfIIs cl-d'ssu! I/r Ilrl/ I,u' POSsl/sston el b loul (/'011, 'I IIlrl/, "v,ndtc.llonslJ' CI/S obillS 1/111/ dlclare qUI/ Ie ll/s .o.ndonne s.lIs/e,r dl/ /;ur eral. J'eml/nas bien qUI/ jl/ dO'S rl/nd,e les OO/I/IS'U proprill/WB S ill/sl "Irouv,_ I/nllsrl/ml/nr er (/e/'nI/IV,inenl_ .. O......ODefI.llIet.".o .""R,I,...O S'O".h"" 01 Q.....,. r;....,.. c"',. ,.~c. :,;: oo;,e. Horne Address.o' Owner/Finder/Address du DfOf)"lJt,,'elde ",nvet1t6u.~ 0.,. c. .".,.,,04'1 ot'. oOt~t 0",.111.61-.. $'9"""" 4.. 1II0P"W'I.I.. ....f..eD.:JO;..., o Receipt/Rel;u Print Namel Nom en leltres moulees o Quit Claim Signature RenonC/81lon o Receipt/ Rel;u Print Name/Nom en leu,es moulees o QUit ClaIm S,gnature RllnonCtOl10n o Rece.pt/Re(:u P"nt Name, Nom en lellreS moulties o QUit Claim Slgnalure RenonCl8tlon D,sposal ApprovEid by Venle acr;):, '~e {'ii' D,scc>sea 'ReleasAd by (slgnaturel V,'~:;, "'bhe pilr ISlgnal"'''', 0 ... lJ \.,...,... Att.';'~"~:J \I. _1e "'c o .....'.\f.r .., (C:.'-l1il'-' 'J" 1='111'- ~F _.- -- J 'JA r~...... ~ -II , DETACHMENT FILE COPY I COPIE DU DETACHEMENT --- {C:: ---- .-.--.-.,------ ,.--- -~'- ....... (- --- --- -....... " Ontario ~. Prbvinc,al Property Report! Rapport de biens -Police Detachment File No.lN" de dossier Hand pr;nt or wrire only/Rempl;r Ie present document /J la'main <:.;) ::>/~/ f;' all /l Property Status/pbjers Evidence Safekeeping Detachment Name and Code/Nom BI COdB du dtJlachBmBnt o Recovered o Found Ufilisss commB o DsrBnus /// RBcouvrlis T,ouvss 'Buve en lieu su' '-''':> ,- Where Property Found / Lieu ou les objers ont tJrs r,ouv6s .3 Yu Dtt9w~ .. ,<}? /)F'/ -S/u Surname of/Nom de famil/e Given Names/P,tlnoms ~Owner S2 ;;- ~;..> ,/1 t /1",.;- L- I _ L- P,op,itlrai,e ~ "o/.u:- Home Address of Owner/ Ad'Bsse du p,op,itlrai,e 'f ~"1 ~ Surname ol/Nom de famille Given Names/P,tlnoms o Finder Inventeu, Home Address of Finder/Ad'Bsse de l'inventeu, FOtwaf<<Nd Jew Eaoert t.._atlOft/'~',!" IP<<"".PO"'''''''''' Out 10...1'0.. :I..p4dIIlt/IA loc.tOft/o.","MIOff ',.ID...l/o.t. .,kftoIfOII (j) ~ ~ ()"r' I J J /d S.FA.A:t.)./' /'1.Jo~ ~ ~- /#~ ::I-h ' c;... f/6J1J_ go ~ 7c)~-_ (/~) ,z .t. $ttt~.j e-/I< wI/<>"I . J ~--- +1 ~//" . .!}2'- ;j 3. ~,/~ /J/H 5 ,($ /JL)t~ ~ ~)4 I O~~ /J/rI /.SA te ~_5' 2. O/'/ w,,,,t- ~ ;>/rJ ~:;;., C -t, f.-,('.h~ ~ /S,4 O~ tf- ~ /'J/ .)~ ;~ V ~A/~ $~ /,,/,ec.. J - 7 :? -::r: /5/1Pt ~;; \ 1" Oa.e Property Received Rank and Badge No~. ,I -Oat. de rtlceDtion des objets O~/' &>~ , ./- G,edll er n- matricule I' V II.' '--A.t/ Y.,t8 / " laTY Datel are de consignarion /1.."~ V? ,1"'6- f"" i riF-1 1'- JI ~,.,. NOTE: Befo.esigning pleale read folloWing carefully/REMAROUE: Li'lIl1rrenrivemenr /IIIlnrduigner. QUIT CLAIM: Being the lawful ownar of the property delcribed above I hereby relinquilh all right. RECEIPT I hereby aCknowledge receipt of the above delcribed property from THE -ONTARIO tille. claim and pOlleuion to tho property end declare that I am abSolutely abandoning the property PROVlNCIAI:_POLICE and am utilfied with itl condition. I understand that I am obliged to return tha wiCh no intention eve' of reclaiming it. property to the owner if he is found. RENONCIA TION: Eranllll proprilllai'e/lgll des objllrs dlerits ci-dUslJ$; jll ,enonee fU' II plllsemes RECU:Pllla prllsemll. ill dllelllrellvoir '''fU de/a SO/erll de rOnra,io /IIS objers dee/ils ei.dessus IIr lit,. I"u, possession er SIOUI droil. lit rir/e. fllV.ndielrion su' ees obj/lls erj" dlle/",. qu" je/es IIlUndonnll salii(air de IlIu' Ilral. J'emends bi.n qu. jlldois 'IInd'lIles objllrs au p'op,illlli'e s if asr 'er,ouvll. enriiremllnt III d6linilivllmllnt, DM. "'"".,,., ..,..... n.""It.....H 5.",..,111'. 01 o.n.r'FltttHI'f(~"<If1Phc."" boa'J Home Address of Owner/Finder/ Addlllssl1u P'Optidtllirllldlll'iml.ntllur o-."''''''MfOtl''''~' O~I ,..,. - SognMWIW dw p'O(II'....,~/d. ,.~.V' teoeNI" (9" .~OtI""J o Receipt/Recu Print Name/Nom en lertres moulses \ o Quit Claim Signature Renonciarion I o Receipt/ Recu Print Name/Nom en leruBs moulses I o Quit Claim Signature Renonciar/on o Receipt! Recu Print Name/Nom en leu,es moulses " ./ o Quit Claim Signature Renonciarion Disposal Approved by/Vente ap,ouv6e pa' Disposed/Released by (signatural Vendu /libtlrtl pe' (slgnatu'e) o O.H.O. Memo Allachld/Nole dll SlInI;C. du aGO e/.ioml. I I o Oetachment Command.r ICommand8llr_ dll dlltllehmem i i F_orm LE 13&4 (ROY_ 04/871/LE 136AF IRIl.... 04/811 ADDITIONAL COpy, COPIE SUPPUMENTAlRE - ( _--L____~ _ -- t (~;;..,,.-- _H (~ ~ -- ..-.-- ._----_._~- -- -----_..~~- - Ontario ... , I I - Provincial- Property Report/Rapport de biens Police Detachment File No.lN" de dOssier Hand print or write only / Remplir Ie present document a la main .0,)/-1 f') () 1/ l / Property Status/9bjels Evidence Safekeeping Detachment Name and Code/Nom el code du dlllBchemBnt o Recover!ld o Found Uti/islls comme o Dlllenus y.}""~ Recouvrlls Trouvlls preuve en lieu sOr ,oi'.J Where Propeny Found/Lieu 00 les oblels onl IlIIl Irouvlls _ j' ~(. ' P/?<A/ L: ~.Z> /J ,,// r " ... -,,,,,,-, Surname ollNom de famille Given Names/Prenoms Owner 2- .." N'~ oJ--,,(.-' V Proprilllalfe .; ~,," ; / e Address of Owner/ Adresse du proprilltaire .5,0 /") ~ I Surname 011 Nom de fsmille Given Names/Prllnoms o Finder - Inventeur Home Address of Finder / Adresse de rinventeur Item umbel f~_IOfE""'1E"""lWlltOlV'f~"Uft~'IfIOW"''''''' :jf) Obj~ 0... tDal.,/o... $'''''''101\ locatlon/o..t...#Ol'I In 1O","DtN *'''-IIPIO' I ~ --' '515 .,... /1'.1) /)(4' ) -J J /L fY9 "'7 ~L/ h4 '?/rt s ~~ItLJ 116.' 1-"'" !Cd) 10 -- , J ,6~A';; S; ~ ~,,,</.t~ (~/"/) l r&_.'1 " f//"/f~ t ~ J""I;-'J, .; ~ / t1 '" ~It( 0 r'O c.4' /~ J ~.J:/~;~::;'t ~;;~~ j:":~::: ~6:~~ @Iv ~ I r; \ I I ~ . ;/ 7" '" fi".; ,- - 4!'..J ),. ,./ h7o~.;> ~'€.P ~ ,2,t ~ /> {/ ~ I I '- "/JI ,';;/.t!J I A.I1 /J/.E ..;;. /!L ;fl,;o/ ~ ! /., (j.ii2:~..i I ;S~.,~ ~UJi'/4JIf/V ../14,- /.;/,,o?,; '-'';:Date Property Received Storage Location . ;Rank and Blldge NQ. .2 DBr. d.r~ception des objets Lieu d'en~~e lJ ~ /' P .,. I- 'Grade'" n.,matiicule- :;.' -- -/ '9 n,l) y 1'i- I't'" ..,/ J:' ,"" ,L ~.e././ ~y fwt~ Diary Date/Dale de consignalion / f /J~tf 9" NOTE: Beloreligning pleale read following carefully/ REMAROUE: Lirullen/;v.mant ~/ln/ dnignar, QUIT CLAIM: Being the lawful owner 01 the property d...cri~d .bove I hereby re.linquilh.1I right. RECEIPT I hereby .cknowledge receipt 01 the above delcribed properly 'Irom THE ONTARIO title. claim aDd pOII..~ion to the property.nd decl."thlt'.m .bsolutely .b.ndoning the property PROVINCIAL POUCE and am alti.,ied with its condition, I underlland thlt I .m obliged to return the wilh no intention ever'ol recl.iming it, property to t"e owner if he il found, RENONC/A T/ON: ErM>' Ie prOp'i~r.i,. Uti" des objtJts ilk/irs ci-dessul. je ,enonce"., II p'6$tJn/e. RECIJ:PtJ' I. prlstJn/6, j. d6,;I.r, ."oi, '6~U d611 Sa'616 de rOn/lrio les Obj61S d6crils ci.d6SsuS6t 6/16 16U' p08$6ssion ". lout d,oit 6r lir'6, '_ndicl/ion SU' CU obj"s "j. d6,;I"tJ QU6 jtJ le$ .bandonna Sl/i#ail d6111Ur 6/11. J'6nrends bian Que ja dois '6nd,. las obj"s au prop,i6tai,. s'iiast r6r,ow6, anti6r6m6n/ al d6finili"am.nl, 0.'. how,", ""U.-d' "."'s ..,..... hl'''ftUfe of o-..,JfmNf.I~/~.," boat Hom6 Addr.1I 01 Owner/Finder/Addr6SS du p'op,i6/1ira/d. rinVlllfreu, D.f. tR ""'.1QrI cr.~~. OOtM.IIlM'f. -. S,rl'WfP'. tN P'tID',.,~/,. ,.,,,.,.,.,.,, Icoe"-1 I. ~J. """011'.,-; I ,- Print Name/Nom en leures moullJes o Receipt/Re,u o Quit Claim Signature Renonciarion - o Receipt/Re,u Print Name/Nom en letlres moullles o Quit Claim Signature Renonciarion o Receipt/Re,u Print Name/Nom en lettresmoullles o Quit Clilim Signature Renoncialion Disposal Approvedby/VentB aprouvlle par Disposed/Released by (signature I Vendu / libllrll par (signature) o D_H.Q_ Memo Anlched/Hot6 d6 se/,,;c6 du aGD ci'loml6 o Delechmenl Commander /Commlnd.n/ dti d6/1chm6nt \ - Form LE 13MIRey_ 04/87)/LE 135AF (Rw. 04/87) ADOmONAL COPY I COPIE SUPPUMENTAJRE ~_.... -..-. -- ..- --.,..--.-- ._-~.- ...-...-- --- - (:~~:, _.~- " ( '''" ---~ Ontario \ Provincial Property Report/Rapport de biens Pollee Detachment File No.1"'" de dossier Hand prim or write only I Remplir Ie present document IJ la mam OJ ~ ,./ f~ /LJ// / / Property Status/Ob/els Evidence Safekeeping Detachmenl Name and Code/Nom et code du dtJtachemenl o Recovered o Found IX UlilistJs comme o DelflnuS />v r 0,) Recouvr/Js rrouvtJs preuve en lieu sur " ....- Where Prope"-ty Found/ Lieu ou les objets ont tJttJ-trouvtJs t: /<" V>/? - r.:/. p-,/ I ~ "0 Surname of/Nom de Given Names/Prenoms DOwner ...;:;' .z. v"/t:r v/-" ,,-' /h ~ Proprietaire , / I.,;. ,,;. ...... Home Address of Owner / Adressedu propritJtaire \ .f "" ~1 ~ Surname of/Nom de famille Given Names/Prenoms o Finder Inventeur Home Address of Finder / Adresse de I'mvenleur Item Num~el forwlfftd fOI E~ h.n'n.ltOtIf'....' ,unaptk...#./IOtK..."...., ObJst n Out IO..,/D..,. 3'_pNttlOfl l.o<:,tlOft/lh$tIlNtKNr M 10....10#1'". '~'M1 iiJ/t J ~ r1cJ... /. ~~~ /?/ ;2.;)/7 /]L.rAQ I I /,q-'I.~'// .c- .,I;" t- 1')/ /,1 f) /)1 _ " I'" ~ ...-I.o",,,j /".. h .l-<.. '---- ~/f J,.- tiSt. c.fti 0/1/ Jl/J I J . A/Jb)~,'../ . 0Jl {" V A.s.~ e!..o~ ~A/ ,d~tJ~<t" I Q// 0).,1v ~ N/>vY (j '- '" '" o ///7 ~,;) I. t. ,0/ p/JtJtd :;;;. 1.11~ I 3. /?~/)/ rI /J,~ ~ I ~' /1/)'" ,I!r' ~~6~ ~ ~.UL;'/J/ /j/,~~... ..;J i ~ ........ I ( (f.t.wd' ;# r 4/J/)~~ .. .) 0) ,;1/ ~/t4//r o/,/ . '-' ~Jy;~ ~/'/1" /81 ..;). ;y 2 t./~/7: 4~{.f1' 4(~,;(~ .4 ///J r Q/f/.f'~ .;. , . Date Property Received Stoeage location .~ ~ bP/'J .. Member. S' n ture .pete de reception du objets Lieu d"enrreposllf/8 p V ... ~~ /) D6-/. .~ree I t o/y ,/ .,L Q (;,,.:' '" .c ( _ iarv Dllte/Dale de consignation ---L f /J~t- f,;,;' NOn: Boloro signing Ploase reed lollowing carelully/REMA-ROUE: Lirearrentivement ..,ant de ,igner. QUIT CLAIM: Being lhellwlul owner 01 the propet1y described above I hereby relinquiSh all righI, RECEIPT I hereby ICknowledge receipl 01 Ihe lbove described propet1y Irom THE ONTARIO title, claim and ponenion 10 Ihe propet1y and declate lhell om absolulely abandoning Ihe properly PROVINCIAL POLICE and am satistied with ils condition. I understend that lam obliged to teturn the wilh no intenlion lIIIer 01 reclaiming it. propet1y \0 lhe owner il he is found. ' RENONCIA TJON: Etlm Je propri6rlire l6gaJ de' objet. d6erit. ei-de.sus. je renoneepar 10 pr6seme j RECU: Por III pr.eme, je d6elllrslvoir 'e~u de/a SO,eI4 de rOnta,io 11$ objet. djeril' ci-dusu. at 4tre lour po"sssion et illoul droit. .t tit,e, r_dicslion .ur CS' obio" at ie d4cl.,0 quo jalfJ.sbllndonns ISli,(ait delsur 4t8t. J,'sntend, bien que ie doi. rendrele. obis" .u propritJt.i,a ,'il s.t ra"ow.! entillrfJm.nt st dtl(initivam.nt. ... O&te"'a,.,ty--'lell", Itom, ~1....O SI,"M\Il'~ or OlllrMf I'f,rtG., ,~. '.POl<Mllc bo.' .Home Addren 01 Owner /Finder / Addr... du propri4talre Ide nnve"teur 0_. fill "'-'_10/1 d., tJlflJ 001.."""., - s.......". dtJ 1YOII'_.../ft ,.".",.,.,.." 'C<<"'ZI. r;y'.IOO'~i o ReceipllRI/~u Print Name/ Nom en /elUes mou/(JI/s o Quit Claim Signature Renoncialion o Receipl/Re~u Print Name/Nom en leetres mouldes o Quil Claim Signature Renoncie/ion ~ o Receiptl Re~u Ptint Name/Nom en lemes moulees o Quit Claim Signatute R enonclIllJon i Disposal Approved by/Vente aprouv(Je par Disposed/Released by (signalure) o D.H.Q. Memo AIlDched/Nore de .erviee du aGO ci'joinle VendullibtJre par (signarure) I i o Oelachmenl Commander/Commandant da d6tachment I I Form LE l3IiA(Rev. 04/871tLE 736AFIR4v. 04/87) ADOmONAl COpy I COPIE SUPPLEMENTAlRE - ~_..- "-" '.- ~ -( "-~,-._------_._._----~_. OntClrlo '"" ~ " Provincial Property Reportl Rapport de biens Police Detachment File No./tor de dossier Hand prim or write only / Remplir Ie pres em documem a la main oj-~~ 9~ //7l Property Status/ObiblS Evidence Safekeeping Detachment Name and Code/Nom et code du dtJlachement o Recovered o Found I;a Ultlis(Js comme o D(Jlenus ,,;;1 R ecouvTlls T rouves preuve eri lieu sur j Ojj~ Where Proper~'f Found/Lieu ou les ob/els ont 616 /rouves 9J..o A- Y~I #/~) r: /.. / '" ~ /'" t- O ...v.- Sufname of/Nom de famille Given Names/Prenoms ~ Owner If3 ~'/ tJ, ~ /.;/ ,"'5' L .../ ~/rI Proprietaire Home Address of Owner(Adresse du propri61aire f~'AJ ~ Surname of/Nom de famil/e Given .Names/ Prenoms o Finder /nvenreur Home Address of Finder/Adresse de r;nvenreur \ Item Number Ouantity FO'....fftid 1~[aO." h.""".llon/l_p;dol I '" Jpkr_s,. P'OV' ..~ Obje, na Quant;,. 0,"" 10&1."0",. f._l>HotfO#l LOC&I,on.lo.".oftMoon In 10",."0.,. tH 'lfN'tfon .5,L I roD4 S L~ .2.4/ ~~tv /..,/;/4,,6// &.-; r ,Ii / ~/-/-- 33 -Z ~~r:/ ~r r1 (""J...,"/ ,-;",...t- ~p ~A~ D~. ~/<" ill' /tfr/r;s G +<!!) y.y I .e' L.. ~ c:. ,z '- "$'j ~ N" t" r~~k--/ ;-' / '5.-4 /J.'; -+ lAY, ,t!,.;t /~/.4L .>~ 3.:f' J r' ~~ 4'. .t:A;,..A - AI 0 J /J S~;./ Z>4'he;..t:t , ..::f II /, AI '- a 1,2 I 7~Y Date Property ~8ceived ."1;i<~ ."storage Location,,,.. Member's Signature RS.llk and Badge No". Date de r(Jception des obieis-' Lieu rfentfep()sage Signa/url! de ragent de polic~ Grade. e/ n' matrieur. Diary Date/DatB de consignation . NOTE: Be/ore signing please read following carefuliylREMAROUE: Lire ettentivement IIVllnt duigner. OUIT CLAIM: Being the lawful ownar olthe properly described above I hereby relinquiSh ell righ~ RECEIPT .1 hereby acknowledge receipt of the abOve described property from THE ONTARIO title, claim ana poaseuion to the property and declare thlll am absolutely abando.~ing the property PROVINCIAL POLICE and am ..liafiea with its condition, I understand that I am obliged to return the with no intention ever 0/ reclaiming it. . property to the OWner if h. is louna_ RENONCIA TION: Etanr Ie prop,illraire IlIgal des objers ddcrirs ci-desslls. je renonce PII' III prdsenre. RECU: Per la prllsenre. je dde/are avoi, re~1I da'lI S,j'er~ de /'Onrllrio les objers dllcriril ci-desslls er IIrre I.llr possession el II rOllr droiL ellirr., revendicalion ~lIrces obiels elie dllclere qll'ietes IIb11ndonne sorisfllir dele", dllll_ J'enrands bien 01111 ie dois rendre/lls obiers 1111 proprilllllire s'ilesr rerrouvll. entill..ment at ddfinirivement. 0.11 PIO~1, 11.'....6 11...... Rel,n.d 5'0"""'" 01 ~../f'Il4" .lch.c..I'~c'~I. bO.' Home Adare.. 01 Owner IFinaer IAddress dll p,op,itlrllire/de I'invenretJr Q.f, rH "~.tO#I c1.s IJD~" O/SNfSf,,,,,.S -. SrgnlrlP. Cfu pro",,,,_!"rr. rm".ttt.1If' (ctKh., J. CWS. ~OP"..., o Receipt/ RB~U Print Name/Nom en letlres 17l0ulees ~~ o Ouit Claim Signature ~ \ Renonciation o Receipt/Re~u Print Name/Nom en letlres moul6es o Ouit Claim Signature Renoncia/ion \ o Receipt/Recu Print Name/Nom en letlres moul6es \ o Ouit Claim Signature Renoncialion \ DispOSlll Approved by/Vente aprouv(Je par Disposed/Released by (signature) Vendu Ilib6r6 par (signature) o D.H.a. Memo Attached/Norll de se'Vlce du aGO ci-Jomle \ o Detachment Commande,lCommllndllnl dll dtlrllchmenl Form LE t35A(R... 04/871/LE 135AF(Rllv. 04/871 OWNER/FINDER I PROPRltTAlRE/TROUVEUR / ~ - ,(. ---7-----.------. -.----."----.--... - ------~----------- jsr.~'" . ')w Ontario Police" , <~ " i~} Property Report <i..' - ~ 1;~, Pro.vincial provincial? Rapport de biens .:g . ,,;J;j.. Police de l'Ontarlo _ . . ,\,,~~.J -,..'.1{i;.:f Hand pnnl or write only ':>. Renplir Ie presenl doCumfInt II /a m~in Detachment Name and Code . ~ Detachment File No./NO de dossier Nom et code du ~etSchement pJ",,' .:;J /1) 0 ..:r> ~ ? .J. 0/1 ? 'i Property Status' 0 Recovered . 0 Found D Evidence 0 Safekeeping Obiets Recouvres Trouves ~ Utilises comme preuve Detenus en lieu sur Where Property Found /5J Lieu ou las objets ont ete trouves t:j 3- 0 /\ ~ Y;JJ...J /!iL r/~:J /? ,~",/ I:""t". 0 "" i Surname of Owner 0 Finder Given Names _ Nom de famille ~FfN't. O~1',I{ ~ Proprietaire Inventeur -Prenoms \J" ;0/.1 Home Address Telephone No. Adresse du domicile f "..-,~. Telephone No lIem . Quan~ly Description (indicate brand name or malee. "'9del. serial number. ,lyle, colour. size, lIlc.) OMPPAC Tag R8COIdIOII_ - lor ~ ~. ~ pout-- Number Quan~le qeacription (indiquez Ia marque, Ie mod8Ie, Ie Il" de s6rie. Ie style, Ia c;ouIeut, Ia \alIe, etl:.) No. 0818 ,QuI (Date )Dale Location In (0818) ~ _ d'exp6di\lon Des~nation Dale de r9ception h .. f~4,-,- ~S~/off ..:i..L--L- . J /' 0/' h.k'/f<"f>'> ~"/)&U J.'/.... J .:!..Z-'-. O/~ C#/J..,./~...n<'" d~.odc J 3~ ~/ o~f? 5#ov~,Oe'/ ~/J~'~h'~ oJ ~4 u O~~S Sh~"~4 ;C~A~~'~ .....Ll--L S;-L.w~.,e:>~ / /~/'.s//~..;. J * 32. :J h,,/~ '- <C.v/'/:WA/.JL(t. 4,/J/Jt~.=> ~ -"II ~& o~ P'S ~/v"~I9/-< /~";5///~ J . -- 0818 Propotty Recei* SlllIlIge LocaUon --- ~ Rank a'llS BalIge No. Oate de n\oeption des olJjets Ueu dentrepcjsage poIa Grede et Il" malrlcule { /t:1 /"111 V r ~ ~"RoI/;4 ./ Diary Date Date de consignation ./ NOTE: llefonl signing please teed the following ClII1IlulIy QUIT ClAIM: Being the lawful_ 01 the propetty alllictibed aIlowIl hereby relinquish Ute atIGnlIv8ment avant de slgnill'. an right, title, cIalm and poeMUIon to the propel1y and cIecIln lhall am absolutely RECEIPT' I hereby acknowIeclge receipt 01 the ebove cleIcribed property from the 0n\aIl0 PrllIIlndaI Police and am abandoning the llIlll*1Y with no InIlIntlon ...... 01 RIClalmlng lL satisfied wIIh iii COndItlon. I unclerlllanc:t thai I am obIlgac1 to tetum the property to the _ Illound. RENONClA TlON: Etanlle pl'ClptI6taIrw l6gaI cIet olljeIa d6crtts ckleIlUI, Ie renonce par RE~U: Par Ia pt6senle, /8 d<<:Iare lMlIt re;u de Ia $OteIj de I'OnIatIo lee olJjets ~ cl-deslua et6trel8llsfall de leur Ia P'-1Ite lleur posseaIion ell tout droll. et tlIto, revencllc:alIon surces objeIs 01 Ie eta\. J'entendS biilns que je cloia tendre Ies 0bje\lI au propri6taIre .'0 .. retrouvt. d6cIarw que Ie lea abancIonne entI6remenl et clefinl\illement. Date Propell'( Releasee! IIemI ReIMsecl SignallNe 01 Owner/Flroder (check appllcabIe box) Home Addreas 01 o..-/FIndllf Dale de liberation des objets Objets 1ib6r1ll Signature du proprietaIre/de I'imlenleur (cochez II case appropri6e) AdI8I8 du proprl6lanld8 rlnvenllNr O Receipt Print Name R Nom en lellres mou"-s ec;;u ! D~a~ ----------- Renonciation SlgtIature O Receipt Print N~ R Nom en lellres moul6es ec;;u I' D QuitClaim ----------- : Renonciatlon Signature i D. Receipt Print Name R Nom en lellnll mou'. . ec;;u O QuitClaim ----------- Renonciatlon Signature liQuor Disposal Disposal Approved byNente aprouvee par o Detachment Commander Commandant de detachement LE 13SA(RevO!Wl) OWNER/FINDER / PROPRIETAIRE!TROUVEUR -- . \tiJ - --- --- -- ------------------ I'}L..~___ -~ --- -----"- "-- ~,;,,,,;, ('- -- ,- f ,0 W Do"'" Poll", ~~~ Property Report J 4:i .:t.: ';~. Provincial provinciale Rapport de biens 1 I ,;~ ~I Police de l'Ontario I Hand print or write only r ':'-\ti"'~a~ ., Renplir I. present doc!Jntflnt .. la main Detachment Name and Code Detachment File No./NO de dossier Nom et code du detachement PJ~~//J -- o.:{/ ,;/ , y,; 0.,> /~ 0//7 '1 Property StatClS o Recovered o Found .LKl Evidence o Safekeeping Objets Recouvres Trouves Utilises comme preuve Detenus en lieu sur Where Property Found ~t:~/t,r ~/;--~ .,6',J 06- #:J~ Lieu 00 les objets ont,ete trouves ,Lo ....,h,,(' Surname of DOwner o Finder Given Namey/_..... /0//',' c.:J. /- Nom de famille Proprietaire Inventeur Prenoms / J, , Home Address I-f--~ 9...", i .J:) or""; e;?~s Telephone No. 3;. 1 ' :2 3tr. Adtesse du domicile ;($ Lo (,. Telephone No 11em Quan1ily OeIcrIpIion.llndk:a1e wand name Of make, model, 88tIaI number, style. colOur, Size; e\C.) OMPPACTag Rec:ordIOffenc;e __""~E_II.r~"~I..ep6cIelIotwpour- Number 0uantit8 OeIcrIpIion (Indiquez Ie 1YIIIIqUe,Ie 1I'lOd4le,1e",de s6rIe. Ie 1tyIe. Ia couleur, Ie lalle. e\C.) No. Oale Out (Dati )Oate Location III (Date! !:l.lllIl....L _ d'ax~itIon Destination Oale de r6ceDllOn .y;L . ~.<"'A fit;> ~ d ~ O/,/' f 0.- I _ ....!.- :.0 AI 0 It' w -'~ , /6", 4J,/ I #il-~ /,'A"O ~~/ P..;,,~/I i ) i -- , -- CO...... ?='7"" ,,- - ~ ----- - ~ ~I' ~ -........... ~ . ~ . -- ~ o~~~ ................. . -- i i Oall Propiwty Rec:elved S10rage Loc:atIon --~ Rank and Badg8 No. 0at8 de r6c:epllon des obIlIla Ueud'~ __ pf'yrl//5/ ' ~er. --4G~;;~~1e I /)., q' ~ ,/),1;, I 02 ;;-;; '" 'i '- I '/J II ". , / ~ l I Diary Date i Date de co~ignatlon ez.. .$t'/1~ I ! NOTE: Before signing pleaM rMd lhlllollowtng ~ QUrT CLAlM:Belng the lawtul_ at lhli'property delC:tlbed abcMIl hereby I'8Ilnquis/l _ Ute alWdlvemenl avarll de aIgner. all right, litle. claim and poaeasIon 10 the property and declare thaI I am ab8Olut8Iy RECEIPT: I herebV adcnowkicIga receipt 01 the e.bove cI88CriblId property from the Onterio Prvvtnc;ial Police and am abendonlng IIMt property """ no intention _ ol-ruclaImIng It. aatiDlied wIIh III condlllon. I ~ Ihalllm olIIlged 10 return thept1lpl/lt)' 10 the _ If founcI. RENONCIA TION: ElanIle prtl\lIl6lalr8 I6gaI deS oblets d~ ckIeasuI, je renonce par RECU: Par 1a_pr6senle, Ie cI6cIete aIIOir ~ de Ie S~ de I'OntaIlo ... objela d6c:rits ckICJ1l1U8 8I6tre aatlafalt de leur Ia pr6aan18 . leur poneaeIon 81 . lOut droit. 81 titre; revendication Illr ClI8 obiels 01 je 61al. J'entenda bIonI quo " doIs mndnIle& 0bjellI" ~ I'D esl retrouvt. d6clare que Ie lea abandonne enll6rement II dlillnltivement. Date Property ReleaIed Ilems.ReIeaMd Signa1U18 01 OwnerlFonder (check applicable box) Home Addr8llll of Ownet/FlndGt Oate de Ilberetion des objels Objels IIb8r6s Signature du proprletairelde M/MInteur (cochez Ie case 8ppropri6e) Adr88S du proprf6talre/de nnventeur o Receipt Print Name Nom en lentes moul"s Reyu o Quit Claim ----------- I Renonciation Slgnaturl i o Receipt Print Name Reyu Nom en 'ItireS moul6es o Quit Claim ----------- Renonciation Signature o Receipt Prinl Naml Nom en lentlS moul6es Reyu o Quit Claim ----------- Renonciation Signature liquor Disposal I Disposal Approved byNente aprouvee par o Detachment Commander I Commandant de detachement LE 1351. (Rev 051811 OWNER/FINDER / PROPRIETAIRE/TROUVEUR --_._-~_._-" --_._~--. -~- "p ~, O.P S.E U. (Szunejko) - and - CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (Ministry of the Solicitor General) G.S.B. FILE 1947/92 D I SSE N T of Edward E. Seymour (Employee Nominee) I have read the Majority Award, and, with respect, I must dissent from the decision The events surrounding this matter are accurately and fairly addressed by the maj ori ty, and I have no dispute'with that aspect of the award Mr Szunejko's actions were quite irresponsible and exhibited poor judgment, however, I am persuaded by the uncontradicted evidence of Dr Ramesh Chandra Jain, who testified that there was little like- lihood of any recurrence of unlawful activity provided the griever continued with his treatment ) Dr Jain's conclusions, and the griever's initial co-operation with both his employer and the police in admitting his wrong-doing, as well as his c~ndour before this panel, convince me that the griever was deserving of another chance '\ In 1 ight of the above, I would have reinstated the griever to a position where there would be little opportunity to repeat the offenses over which he lost his employment This reinstatement r would have been without compensation, and would be conditional upon - ---- -.-- -- ..\ " ~ - 2 - his continuing to receive treatment from Dr Jain for as lbng as Dr Jain considered necessary I would also have ruled that periodic reports be submitted to the Ministry by Dr Jain regarding the griever's progress / I '-- ~~J~~~~/ Edward E Seymour, Union Nominee l ) ( opeiu 343