THE RISE AND FALL OF STAFF INSPECTOR STEVE IZZETT (PART 4)

Former Inspector Steve Izzett was charged with five counts of misconduct. He was found guilty of all charges and the sentence hearing was scheduled to take place on July 2, 2013. On the day of the sentence hearing, Mr. Izzett failed to appear. Instead his counsel sought an adjournment for medical reasons on Mr. Izzet’s behalf. If the hearing was adjourned, for a month, Izzet would be eligible for his pension. If the case ^proceeded, he would not be eligible for his pension other than what he paid towards his pension.                                         

When the hearing officer decided to proceed with the sentencing without Mr. Izzett being present, he relied heavily on a Supreme Court of Canada ruling; Regina Police Association v. Regina Police Commissioners, That case was heard in 2000. In that case, the facts involved the resignation of a police officer who would be served with a notice of hearing if he did not resign. That officer also had his request for the withdrawal of his resignation declined. When the arbitrator in the Regina appeal case declined jurisdiction to hear the case, a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada found that the Saskatchewan Police Commission had jurisdiction to find that the informal resolution of a disciplinary matter could be considered a constructive dismissal. 

                                                     

Mr. Izzett appeared at the hearing after a recess and immediately handed his resignation to his superior officer. The resignation, from Mr. Izzett’s perspective, was effective immediately. Mr. Izzett then immediately left the hearing.                                                           

After hearing submissions from counsel, hearing officer Keith A. Hoilett, (retired judge) he gave due consideration to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act (PSA) that states: If at any time after a complaint about the conduct of a police officer is made under this Part and before the complaint is finally disposed of the police officer resigns, no further action shall be taken under this Part in respect of the complaint after the date of resignation.      

The decision to deliver the sentence was based on the conclusion that “after the date” in this case was midnight on July 3, 2013. The hearing officer ordered the dismissal of Mr. Izzett if he did not resign within 7 days. The decision was served on Mr. Izzett on July 4, 2013. Mr. Izzett withdrew his resignation on July 4, 2013 in a letter to the Chief of Police. On July 5, 2013 Mr. Izzett was informed that his request for the withdrawal of his resignation was denied. Mr. Izzett then appealed the decision of the hearing officer to the Ontario Police Commission.                                                                                                                                                            

The Toronto Police Service (TPS) brought a motion to have Mr. Izzett’s appeal dismissed. Ms. Sharon Wilmot for TPS argued that the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear Mr. Izzett’s appeal. The crux of the TPS argument was that Mr. Izzett had resigned, that the timing of the decision of the hearing officer was not a fact in issue and since the Commission was bound by the PSA, it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a former police officer.

Mr. Izzett submitted that he had anticipated that the disciplinary hearing would have ended once he submitted his resignation and that the hearing officer erred when he interpreted section 90 (1) of the PSA to mean the next day and which allowed the hearing officer to deliver his decision on sentence.                                                                                 

The Commission declined to follow the previous Regina appeal. It found that Mr. Izzett’s resignation occurred on the day his sentence was to be handed down, it was not coerced, it was not part of any informal agreement and it could not be characterized as a constructive dismissal. The Commission found that the penalty imposed by the hearing officer requiring Mr. Izzett to resign within 7 days or be dismissed was moot since Mr. Izzett had resigned prior to his sentence. For this reason, Mr. Izzett was not a police officer in respect of an appeal to the Commission and therefore the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear Izzett`s appeal. The Izzett`s appeal was dismissed.

That former inspector dragged his police hearing for several years so that he could continue getting his salary. Finally the Toronto Police Service was rid of this disreputable police inspector once and for all. In my opinion, his career as a police officer is permanently finished. Of course, there is no reason why he can`t work as a dog catcher. If he does get such a job, he can try his bullying tactics on the dogs.   

To prove how stupid this man was, consider his resignation before the date (3 days later) when he would be eligible for 70% of his annual salary of $134, 306, He would have received as much as $94,000.00 a year for life. As it turned out, all he got was the money he put in towards his pension.