THUNDER BAY — A city police officer who pleaded guilty to Police Service Act charges including unnecessary use of force during an interaction with an Indigenous man has lost an appeal on the penalty of demotion.
A panel with the Ontario Civilian Police Commission released its appeal ruling on Wednesday for Thunder Bay Police Service Const. Peter Haase.
Haase pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct, insubordination, and unlawful or unnecessary use of force charges under the Police Service Act during a hearing earlier this year in February.
The charges relate to an interaction Haase had with an Indigenous man on Jan. 2, 2022 where he grabbed the man by the jacket and pushed him against the wall of a bus shelter.
The interaction was captured by body-worn camera.
In March, hearing officer Morris Elbers ruled Haase to be demoted from his position of first class constable to third class constable for a period of four months. After which, Haase would be elevated to second class constable for 12 months before then being permitted to return to first class constable.
Haase was also ordered to attend Indigenous issues training and any other training as determined by the police service.
An appeal of the penalty of demotion was filed by Haase, arguing the hearing officer failed: “to give appropriate weight to uncontradicted medical evidence of the [Haase’s] rehabilitation,” as well as failing to consider that the man did not have concerns about the interaction with Haase and declined to file a complaint and the hearing officer failed to give effect to the principle of progressive discipline.
According to the appeal, Haase was involved in a dangerous occurrence while on duty that may have influenced his behaviour during the interaction on Jan. 2, 2022, as detailed in a letter presented during the hearing.
“The Hearing Officer did not fail to consider, reject or dismiss the evidence of the role that PTSD played in the misconduct or the rehabilitative potential of the Appellant,” the OCPC ruling reads.
“He provided that he would require a more in-depth report to conclude PTSD played a greater role in the misconduct and gave further reasons he was ‘not totally convinced by the one line of this psychologist’ this was the case.”
Regarding the man not filing a complaint, the appeal argued Elbers overstated the seriousness of the encounter, but the OCPC panel disagreed.
“It is clear, reading the entirety of his reasons, the Hearing Officer’s concern was [Haase’s] aggressive and inhumane treatment of any member of the public, particularly in light of his use of profanity,” the panel’s decision reads.
“He also viewed the [Haase’s] conduct as damaging to the public trust and the reputation of the Service as, in his view, it had the effect of undermining steps taken to address and repair mistrust the Service had caused to the Indigenous community.”
Haase has faced previous disciplinary measures, including one charge of insubordination in November 2019 resulting in him forfeiting 24 hours and in April 2021 he was charged with discreditable conduct and he forfeited 72 hours.
The appeal argued that because he has only been with the Police Service for two-and-a-half years at the time of the interaction on Jan. 2, 2022 that the penalty of demotion rather than an increase in a forfeiture of hours was contrary to the principal of progressive discipline.
The OCPC panel said Elbers provided adequate reasons as to why a demotion rather than an increase in the forfeiture of hours was necessary in this case.
“These reasons related not only to the prior discipline record, but his view on the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage it caused to public confidence in and the reputation of the Service,” the decision reads.
“The Hearing Officer considered and weighed other relevant dispositional factors, including rehabilitation, the need for deterrence and the [Haase’s] recognition of the seriousness of the misconduct.”
The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the panel and Elbers's penalty decision was upheld.
