Why Do Toronto Police Go So Easy on Drunk Driving Cops?

If the expressway had not been virtually deserted, things could have happened very differently for Toronto police Constable Enis Egeli and anyone else on the road.

It was around 4 AM on December 2, 2013 as Egeli drove along Toronto's Gardiner Expressway. As he headed east, a witness saw Egeli's personal vehicle "bounce" off a curb and swerve across the road, according to court records.

When Egeli pulled over, the witness drove past, nothing that the airbags were deployed and the front tires were flat. But Egeli didn't stop for long. The officer eventually drove his SUV off the Gardiner and onto nearby Spadina Avenue,where the witness found Egeli with his hazard lights on,talking on a cellphone.

Egeli was eventually convicted of driving while impaired. And in a recent tribunal decision from the Disciplinary Hearings Office, Supt. Debra Preston ordered that. Enis Egelibe "demoted to second-class constablefor a period of six months."

The Egeli decision is not the first time the Toronto Police Service (TPS) has demoted or reduced the rank of an officer convicted of drunk driving. But it could represent the police force's last shred of patience, and the end of a sentencing regime where officers convicted of drunk driving simply forfeit some pay and return to work.

"There comes a time when this Servicemust stand up and examine eachof the penalties applied and determine whether or not they are achieving the deterrence required,"Preston wrote in her decision. "This is the time with respect to alcohol-related driving offences."

Cases involving alcohol and reckless driving continue to come before the tribunal,which handles allegations of police misconduct. The prosecutor in the Egeli case "highlighted that approximately five officers per year have been charged with alcohol-related driving offences between 2004 and 2015," Preston wrote. She added that the number declined last year, but three Toronto officers have been arrested for similar offences in 2016.

Last week,Const. Manhar Patel pled guilty to discreditable conduct at the tribunal, stemming from a 2015 criminal conviction. While off-duty in Brampton in 2012, Patel turned through a red light, crashing into another driver[1]. Patel smelled like alcohol,and a police officer found a bottle of vodka in "the foot well area of the rear passenger seat,"according to a court transcript.

Police charged Patel with two alcohol-related driving offences, but the officer would ultimately plead guilty to a different charge: dangerous driving.

A statement of alleged facts said Patel showed signs of having consumed alcohol, but defence counsel Michael Lacy said his client was not admitting impairment.

The justice was satisfied with the proceedings, and noted that the case was "unusual."

Disciplinary penalties vary from force to force. In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the RCMP adjudicated nine disciplinary cases for the offences of impaired driving or driving under the influence of alcohol. The most severe penalty was a reprimand and forfeiture of 10 days' pay, according to a report from the police force.

The force adjudicated five impaired driving offences the previous fiscal year, and one instance of driving under the influence of alcohol.

The Toronto Star reported last year that punishments for drinking and driving at the TPS were more lenient than those of other area police forces. A 2006 document from the Ontario Provincial Police noted that as the OPP warned officers of demotion for"alcohol-related driving allegations," the force's Toronto counterparts opted for"penalties ranging from six days off to twelve days off."

The prosecutor in the Egeli case submitted a 1986 document from a provincial policing commission, which noted that the Toronto police had been"left behind" when it came to penalties for impaired driving.

This long-standing disparity in penalties could help lawyers defend officers accused of drunk driving, according to OPP Insp. Charles Young.At hearings, where prosecution and defence submit past disciplinary decisions to support their arguments, Young said lawyers representing OPPofficers sometimes provide only Toronto cases.

"It's a strategic positioning to try and really say the OPP is really out there,and they need to be brought back in,"said Young, who added that his suggestion was "pure conjecture."

In 2014, the TPS tribunal seemed prepared to shift toward harsher penalties whenPreston docked Sgt. John Sievers' pay for impaired driving. Preston warned that the officers should know"gradation, demotion and/or dismissal are likely penalties."

But later, lawyer Gary Clewley defended Scott Kingdon, a Toronto sergeant who pled guilty to an alcohol-related offence—and he found a way to help his client avoid demotion. Preston's warning came after Kingdon's misconduct, Clewley argued, and an officer can't heed a warning that hasn't been issued yet.

Kingdon was docked 20 days' pay.

Clewley used the same argument during Egeli's hearing. Once again, Preston found Clewley's argument persuasive, and did not demote Egeli for a full year, as the prosecution requested.

But Preston is obviously frustrated as officers continue to drive drunk, and her penalty suggests punishments at the disciplinary tribunal will become harsher for police who break the law.

"All members must be aware that alcohol-related driving offences are offensive, preventable,and will not be tolerated," Preston wrote.

Follow Stephen Spence Davis on Twitter.