Kyle Upjohn (“Upjohn”), an officer with ten years of experience on the police force, was charged with the offence of breach of trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code and following a preliminary inquiry he was committed to stand trial. Upjohn successfully brought an application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking to quash the order committing him to stand trial.
A Crown prosecutor is appealing the decision to quash Upjohn’s criminal trial to Ontario’s highest court maintaining that the lower court Judge erred. Milan Rupic, Crown prosecutor, claims that Justice Maureen Forestall erred in failing to consider “the whole of the evidence” when considering Upjohn’s intent.
Rupic contends that Upjohn allegedly refused to help stop a young man commit suicide in High Park and should stand trial as the cop “knowingly avoided a duty of vital importance”.
On February 2, 2016, a concerned citizen reported to Upjohn, who was parked in his marked police vehicle in High Park, that a young man was preparing to hang himself in the park. Instead of coming to the aid of Alexandre Boucher (“Boucher”), Upjohn allegedly falsely claimed he was on another call and told the man to dial 911 and then drove away.
Subsequently, Upjohn was dispatched to attend to the park where Boucher, a 19-year-old, was later pronounced dead.
Initially, Upjohn was charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessities of life. These charges were withdrawn and Upjohn was charged with breach of trust by a public officer.
THE LOWER COURT DECISION
On application to the Superior Court of Justice, Upjohn’s lawyer argued that a breach of trust case required evidence that the accused had a dishonest or corrupt ulterior purpose for avoiding the call, and that there was no such evidence of this nature. Justice Forestell agreed with this position and quashed Upjohn’s committal to stand trial.
THE ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL
The Crown prosecutor has filed an appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Crown argues that Justice Forestell erred in her decision to quash the trial by failing to consider the “whole of the evidence” in terms of Upjohn’s intent.
The Crown argues that the evidence supports the inference that Upjohn “knowingly avoided a duty of vital importance by means of a deceit”. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that in avoiding his public duty, Upjohn was untrustworthy and the breach of his duty was not for the public good.
The Crown stated:
This was not an innocent mistake. Upjohn masked his failure to act with dishonesty – by lying about being “on a call”. The lie suggests that Upjohn knew what he was doing wrong, that he was intentionally using his office for a purpose other than the public good.
The appeal in this case is scheduled to be heard in November, 2018.
WHAT IS BREACH OF TRUST?
A charge of breach of trust by a public officer is laid when an official is accused of violating the standard of conduct and responsibility demanded by his/her position.
Section 122 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
The Supreme Court of Canada set out the elements of the offence of breach of trust by a public officer in R. v. Boulanger:
- The accused is an official;
- The accused was acting in connection with the duties of his office;
- The accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him by the nature of the office;
- The conduct of the accused represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and
- The accused acted with the intention to use his public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.
UPJOHN’S CURRENT STATUS
Currently, Upjohn remains suspended with pay from the Toronto Police Service since May 2016.
Upjohn is also accused of three counts of professional misconduct under Ontario’s Police Services Act, including neglect of duty and acting in a disorderly manner.
Under this Act, disciplinary hearings are conducted by police services. A hearing officer must decide whether the allegations of misconduct have been proven on clear and convincing evidence. If an officer is found guilty of misconduct, appropriate penalties may be imposed, including:
- a reprimand;
- a direction to undergo specific counselling, treatment or training;
- a direction to participate in a specified program or activity;
- forfeiture of pay or time off;
- suspension without pay;
- demotion; or
We will report in this blog any developments in this case as they occur, including the decision on appeal.
In the meantime, if you have been charged with a criminal offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Barrison Law online or at 905-404-1947. We have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience. We are available when you need us most.