Timmins_Police_Service_logo_upd“Chief Gauthier how do you plead to that amended allegation?”

Police Chief Gauthier rose from his chair and answered, “Guilty”

Timmins Police Chief John Gauthier is pleading guilty to an amended disciplinary charge at a public hearing before the Ontario Civillian Police Commision (OCPC).

Gauthier’s lawyer’s said the Chief is pleading guilty to acting in a manner likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the Timmins Police Service. The Chief is pleading not guilty to acting in a manner prejudicial to discipline.

Both charges are disciplinary issues, not criminal offences.

The public hearing looking into the conduct of Timmins Police Chief John Gauthier was held at The Holiday Inn Express on Monday March 30th, 2015

According to information provided from the OCPC, it is alleged that Chief Gauthier accepted a couple of traffic tickets from then City Councillor Gary Scripnick

It is alleged that Gauthier gave Scripnick a free pass on the alleged offences, by willingly pulling the tickets from the docket stemming from a traffic light offence in May 2013.

TIMELINE

On May 19th, 2013, Scripnick was stopped at a red light at the intersection of Lafleur Drive and Shirley Street in Timmins.

This intersection was the subject of three separate complaints by Scripnick to the city engineer, that “the particular light was malfunctioning and did not change from red to green when oncoming traffic approached the lights.”

While sitting at the light, Constable Kevin Clement of the Timmins Police Service pulled up behind Scripnick’s vehicle at the red light.

It was then, that Scripnick exited his vehicle and approached Cst. Clement’s window to ask him for help with the “malfunctioning” light”. Not aware that the light had malfunctioned in the past – Cst. Clement did not recognize then city councillor Gary Scripnick.

After hearing Scripnick’s complaint, Cst Clement then told Scripnick that he would have to take his complaints and concerns to city council or the city’s engineering department.

Frustrated, Mr. Scripnick told Cst. Clement that he was going to go through the red light and Constable Clement did not tell Scripnick not to proceed through the red light.

Once Scripnick returned to his truck, he waited for three cars to make their turn and then drove through the red light at Lafleur and Shirley.

Immediately after, Cst. Clement turned on his emergency lights and followed Scripnick through the intersection, pulling him over.  Both Scripnick and Cst. Clement then exited their vehicles.

Cst. Clement describes Scripnick as “agitated” as he explained he was a City Councillor and urged Clement to call his supervisor.

Not only had Scripnick run a red light in front of a police officer, but his insurance was expired.

Scripnick asked Cst. Clement if he could just quickly drive to his house to grab a valid insurance card for the officer. Scripnick told Clement he lived roughly 150 metres away from the location he was pulled over.

It was then that Cst. Clement returned to his police cruiser to announce the traffic stop over the radio.

He then received a phone call from colleague and Constable Matthew Beerman, who told Clement that he had just recently issued a ticket to Scripnick for a red light infraction AND he had also given Scripnick a warning for not having a valid insurance slip inside his truck.

Cst. Clement then called his supervisor, Staff Seargent Danny Charest, who told Clement that he was not aware of any issues with the lights at that particular intersection and reiterated that Scripnick was not exempt from the Highway Traffic Act, just because he is a city councillor.

Clement warned Sgt. Charest that a frustrated Scripnick was likely going to file a complaint about him.

Cst. Clement returned to Scripnicks truck to issue two certificates of offence or “provincial offence notices” for going through a red light and for failing to produce valid insurance.

During this time, Scripnick recorded this particular conversation and Clement advised him that he was doing the same. The interaction was recorded by the in-car dash camera in Constable Clements patrol car, but the audio was not turned on at the time.

After the traffic stop, Clement observed the “malfunctioning” lights at Lafleur Drive and Shirley Street and did not observe any problems for 16 minutes.

He emailed Staff Seargent Charest and Seargent Chypyha and described the traffic light to them, asking that they forward his email to Chief Gauthier.

A copy of the ticket (PONs) was placed in a locked box in the traffic department.

Meanwhile, Scripnick was sending emails to Chief Gauthier and then-Mayor Tom Laughren about the traffic stop.

In the email, he included his audio recording of the conversation between him and Clement.  Mr Scripnick wanted to make the Chief aware of the manner in which Clement spoke with him – claiming he didn’t like it.

On Monday May 20th 2013 on a statutory holiday, Chief Gauthier, in plain clothing went to see Scripnick at his home. Then, the two went to the intersection and drove through it at least three times.

The lights were functioning properly each time.

Scripnick told Gauthier that there are in fact times when the lights don’t work.  The two then returned to Scripnicks residence, meeting for approximately 30 minutes.

After the two met up, Gauthier emailed Clement, reiterating Scripnicks issue with the lights at the intersection, reminding him that Scripnick had brought it up an council meetings in the past.

Gauthier wrote to Clement saying that Scripnick “acknowledges that he should have been more patient, that he did go through the red light, and that he should have waited for you to tell him to go through”. Gauthier also requested via email that Clement NOT process the PONs.

He said if Clement still had the PONs, to place them in an envelope for him . Gauthier told Clement that if the tickets were already in the locked box, he advised he could have them removed. It was then that Clement told Sgt. Charest about the email.

AFTERMATH

A “discredible conduct” charge is defined as “acting in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force of which the officer is a member”.

Originally, in July 2013, Gauthier was facing a criminal offence “Obstruction of Justice” charge for allegedly acting in a manner designed to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding.

Suggesting Gauthier was obstructing justice and interfering in the court process – a member of the Timmins Police Service filed the charge and brought the alleged offence to the attention of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The Ontario Provincial Police went on to further investigate, interviewing a handful of witnesses including members of city council, police officers and members of the Police Services Board. In the first week of November 2013, upon reviewing the evidence and interviewing a handful of witnesses, the OPP closed the investigation, telling the Attorney General that there were no grounds for any criminal charges against Police Chief John Gauthier.

But for Gauthier, his legal woes were far from being over.

After the Ministry of the Attorney General determined there was no issue – dropping their investigation, the Ontario Civillian Police Commission began investigating.

The focus of the investigation centered upon certificates of offence, such as the Highway Traffic Act tickets. The OCPC is a body that oversees policing services, and ensuring that such services are provided in a fair and accountable manner as outlined in the Ontario Police Services Act.

The sentencing hearing is adjourned for June 11th and 12th