THUNDER BAY - A Thunder Bay Police Service officer found guilty of discreditable conduct and neglect of duty in his handling of the Stacy DeBungee sudden death investigation has lost his appeal on the findings of misconduct and the demotion penalty.
Shawn Harrison filed the appeal after being found guilty of the Police Service Act charges in 2022. Hearing officer Greg Walton imposed a penalty of demotion from the rank of staff sergeant to sergeant for a period of 18 months, as well as requiring Harrison to complete Indigenous cultural competency training.
The penalty was stayed in February 2023 pending the outcome of the appeal.
A decision released on Monday by an Ontario Civilian Police Commission panel dismissed Harrison’s appeal, saying the hearing officer did not err in his findings of misconduct nor on the penalty of demotion.
The charges relate to Harrison’s actions while he was the lead investigator into the sudden death of DeBungee, whose body was found in the McIntyre River on Oct. 19, 2015.
Jim Leonard, the former Chief of Rainy River First Nation, and Stacy’s brother, Brad DeBungee, filed a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director in 2016 over the Thunder Bay Police Service’s handling of the investigation.
The case of DeBungee’s death was also included in the Office of the Independent Police Review Director’s 2018 Broken Trust report, which called for it to be reinvestigated due to the failures of the original investigation.
Walton found that Harrison “failed to treat or protect the deceased and his or her family equally and without discrimination because the deceased was Indigenous.” Walton also said that the case was an example of unconscious bias regarding Indigenous people and that influenced the investigation.
Harrison pleaded guilty to the charge of neglect of duty for failing to meet with a private investigator hired by the family to look into the circumstances surrounding DeBungee’s death.
Det. Shawn Whipple was also charged with discreditable conduct and neglect of duty but was found not guilty of the charges.
According to the appeal, Walton erred in his findings on the scope of Harrison’s neglect of duty, as well as his conclusion that his approach to the investigation constituted discreditable conduct.
It also argued that Walton’s findings on Harrison’s conduct were inconsistent with his findings of Whipple and that he erred on the penalty imposed.
“The commission finds no error in the hearing officer’s analysis and findings of neglect of duty and no basis to intervene,” the OCPC’s decision reads.
“The hearing officer’s findings of fact and determination of credibility are owed considerable deference. His approach to the evidence was not flawed and his conclusions were well within the range of reasonable outcomes.”
Regarding whether Harrison’s approach to the investigation constituted discreditable conduct, the panel agreed with Walton’s finding that Harrison “committed discreditable conduct by failing to treat or protect persons, specifically Stacy DeBungee and his family, equally and without discrimination because of their Indigenous status.”
“While the hearing officer could have used language other than ‘unconscious bias,’ it does not undermine the reasonableness of his decision,” the panel’s decision goes on to read.
“Given the circumstances of the case, there was no error in the hearing officer determining the appellant should have been alive to the impact of bias, conscious or otherwise, on his investigation.”
The panel also dismissed the notion that Walton’s findings regarding Harrison were inconsistent with that of Whipple.
“Given the significantly different roles played by these two officers, there are logical and rational reasons for the different determinations of guilt,” the decision reads. “There is no merit to this ground of appeal.”
Harrison’s appeal also argued that the penalty imposed was excessive in the circumstances and improperly based on the notion of unconscious bias. However, it also stated that if the OCPC did not find any errors in Walton’s findings on discreditable conduct or neglect of duty, there was no basis to interfere with the penalty.
“The commission has determined there were no errors in the hearing officer’s findings with respect of either count,” the decision reads. “Given the appellant’s oral submissions on penalty, further analysis is unnecessary and the appeal from penalty is dismissed.”
Public complainant's appeal also dismissed
Public complainants Jim Leonard and Brad DeBungee also filed an appeal with the OCPC on the penalty imposed and called for Harrison to be dismissed from the police service.
In a separate decision released on the same day, the OCPC panel dismissed that appeal as well.
Leonard and DeBungee argued Walton did not give sufficient weight to the aggravating factor of public interest, nor give appropriate consideration to the importance of reconciliation, and he failed to appropriately examine region-specific demands.
The panel’s decision noted that Walton did find public interest to be an aggravating factor in the case and he did not err in weighing the relevant factors.
“The commission cannot reweigh factors and substitute its own opinion,” the decision reads. “Unless there has been an error in principle or relevant factors have been ignored, the commission will not interfere with the penalty decision even if it would have come to a different conclusion.”
The panel goes on to say that Walton also did not err in weighing the importance of reconciliation when determining Harrison’s penalty.
“The hearing officer carefully considered the testimony of the public complainants and determined that a significant sanction was required to address the damage to the Indigenous community resulting from the respondent officer’s behaviour,” the decision states.
“The hearing officer found a clear lack of trust between the Indigenous community and the TBPS and ‘a feeling of disgust’ in the Indigenous community that would remain for years regardless of the hearing outcome.”
The OCPC also disagreed that Walton failed to recognize region-specific considerations, primarily trauma to the Indigenous community.
The panel’s decision stated that Walton “turned his mind” to the relationship between Indigenous people and the Thunder Bay Police Service and the unique policing issues the region faces.
“It is clear that the hearing officer recognized the unique, region-specific and Indigenous community considerations in determining the appropriate penalty,” the panel stated in its decision.
“He fully and appropriately considered the social context of the respondent officer’s misconduct. Again, we find the hearing officer’s findings on this point to be reasonable and no basis to interfere.”
