THUNDER BAY - A Thunder Bay Police Service officer will forfeit 60 hours of paid work for advising a homeowner and off-duty police officer at a house party in violation of the province-wide stay-at-home order that police were on the way.
Const. Kerry Dunning pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct during a Police Service Act hearing held in July and the hearing officer, retired superintendent, Peter Lennox, delivered his decision in September agreeing to the joint disciplinary submission by counsel of a forfeiture of 60 hours.
A second charge of breach of confidence against Dunning was withdrawn.
According to the disciplinary hearing documents, Dunning was on-duty the night of Jan. 15, 2021, when he called a homeowner on Pennock Drive where a party was taking place to advise him that police were on the way in relation to a violation of the provincial stay-at-home order, which was put in place during a surge in COVID-19 cases in Ontario.
Dunning also communicated with an off-duty police officer who was at the gathering advising him which officers were attending the scene and the timing of their arrival. That officer has since retired.
Those in attendance at the gathering moved vehicles in an attempt to avoid detection. The events were shared on social media, which included someone saying the party could continue because inside information was being shared by an off-duty officer in attendance.
Dunning said he was not aware the off-duty officer was in attendance at the party prior to contacting the homeowner, who had a connection to his police partner.
Later that night, Dunning informed his supervisor of his actions, which were called inappropriate by both his supervisor and staff sergeant.
Lennox took into consideration several mitigating and aggravating factors when considering the joint disciplinary submission by the defense and prosecution, which included the seriousness of the misconduct, public interest, Dunning’s employment history, and damage to the reputation of the police service.
“I share the opinion that it is in the public interest that the police maintain the public trust, as the ability of the police to serve effectively depends on the trust of the people they serve,” Lennox wrote in his decision.
“Const. Dunning’s actions, despite his assertion that his intent in contacting people at the unlawful assembly was to educate and assist them, would, I find, be interpreted by a reasonable person as an attempt to give special treatment to a homeowner with whom he apparently had a connection through his police partner, and a colleague who was a guest in the home, and to undermine the provincial orders and extensive T.B.P.S. policies that were put in place to protect the public from the threat of the coronavirus pandemic.”
Dunning has been with the Thunder Bay Police Service for 18 years in the Uniform Patrol Branch. In that time, he has not faced any disciplinary action aside from a reprimand for not wearing a face-covering in a police vehicle, which he said followed a particularly stressful encounter and he forgot to put it back on.
The prosecution argued that not wearing a mask in a police vehicle and his actions on Jan. 15 pointed to Dunning not taking COVID-19 precautions seriously. While Lennox said he did not place much emphasis on the mask incident, he admitted it cannot be ignored, as both incidents “undermined the service’s attempts to protect its members and the public from the effects of the pandemic.”
“Incidents like this, and the reasonable conclusions that are drawn by people who are made aware of them, have a negative impact on the reputation of the police service,” Lennox added.
Several supervisors and colleagues of Dunning submitted letters as part of the hearing, highlighting his strengths and dedication as a police officer. Lennox agreed that the incident on the night of Jan. 15 did not represent a pattern of behaviour.
“It is my fervent hope that Const. Dunning will overcome this matter and his personal challenges and continue to be a dedicated police officer who continues to show these very desirable qualities,” he wrote.
Lennox also commended Dunning for reporting his actions to his supervisor that same night and taking responsibility and expressing remorse.
“It is clear to me that, for the most part, Const. Dunning recognizes the seriousness of his misconduct,” he wrote.
Lennox agreed with the joint submission of forfeiting 60 hours of paid work, which is to be worked within nine months of the decision or, failing that, taken from Dunning’s available time banks.
