PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In closing arguments in June, Schertzer’s lawyer, Joanne Mulcahy, said her client did “the best that she could” to remove herself from the investigation into her nephew, including by standing back and away while the officer from her division questioned Calvin. She said Schertzer rushed to the scene because both Calvin’s parents and sister were out of town. “Police are humans. They are not robots,” Mulcahy said. Hutchison, the prosecutor, said Schertzer’s love for her family was precisely why she was in a conflict of interest. “Her affection for her family is why she shouldn’t have been there,” Hutchison said."
----------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Toronto police inspector found guilty of professional misconduct following nephew’s crash," by Crime and Policing Reporter Wendy Gillis, published by The Toronto Star, on October 7, 2024.
SUB-HEADING: "Insp. Joyce Schertzer had faced three counts of police misconduct stemming from a single-vehicle 2022 crash involving her nephew. She was found guilty of two."
PHOTO CAPTION: "Insp. Joyce Schertzer is seen in police body camera footage at the scene of her nephew’s collision."
GIST: "Toronto police Insp. Joyce Schertzer has been found guilty of two counts of professional misconduct following a high-profile disciplinary hearing that saw the senior officer accused of meddling in an investigation into her nephew — what prosecutors alleged was a clear conflict of interest.
Retired OPP Supt. Lisa Taylor, who presided over the disciplinary hearing, found Schertzer guilty of one count each of discreditable conduct and insubordination under provincial police legislation stemming from a 2022 single-vehicle crash — an incident that prompted widespread outcry within Canada’s largest municipal force after the senior officer rushed to the collision herself and summoned an officer from her own division to investigate.
Taylor found Schertzer not guilty of a third count of professional misconduct — neglect of duty — under Ontario’s Police Services Act.
In a scathing decision, Taylor criticized the “perfunctory,” “cursory” and “unenthusiastic” investigation that cleared Schertzer’s nephew of any criminality in the crash after a six-minute probe. She questioned how Schertzer did not see that there was anything wrong with being on scene while a subordinate — whom she personally summoned from her own outside police division — conducted the investigation.
The officer was “placed in a terrible position,” the hearing officer said, and Schertzer’s presence alone “could have unconsciously influenced” the officer’s decision making, which included promptly sending Calvin home and away from the crash.
In what became the central issue in the case, the tribunal heard that fateful decision robbed officers from Traffic Services, who investigate collisions, of the opportunity to administer a breathalyzer test; Calvin had been drinking the night before.
Although Taylor said she was convinced Calvin had not been impaired by drugs or alcohol at the time of the collision, “we will never know” if his blood-alcohol level was zero, as required by his G2 license.
Schertzer showed no emotion as the decision was being read out by Taylor at the Toronto tribunal Wednesday.
Officers found guilty at the tribunal face consequences ranging from a reprimand to dismissal.
A one-day hearing for submissions on Schertzer’s penalty will be held Oct. 28.
The decision comes two months after Schertzer — a former homicide detective who manages the Toronto Police Operations Centre — took the stand in her own defence in the hearing.
The multi-day tribunal heard competing narratives about Schertzer’s motivations for rushing to the scene of her nephew’s collision and speaking directly with the officer on scene, a subordinate.
While Schertzer insisted she’d involved herself in the crash out of sincere concern for her nephew’s well-being — “I was there as ‘Aunt Joyce,’” she testified — prosecutors said her actions prevented police from administering a breathalyzer, and were an attempt to influence the outcome of the probe.
The tribunal heard Schertzer’s nephew was pulling out of The Boulevard Club, a licensed facility, on the morning of May 1, 2022, when he crashed into a light pole on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard West. Immediately before the crash, he’d been waved through to turn left by a private security guard but had to accelerate to avoid a collision with another car; he then lost control of his white pickup truck on a road slick with rain.
Schertzer — then in charge of the west-end 11 division — was contacted about the crash and immediately sprang into action. She asked a subordinate at her division to send a police car to the collision — even though it happened just outside of her detachment’s jurisdiction, on the border — then drove to the collision herself. She was the first on the s
A constable from Schertzer’s 11 division then arrived. Video entered into evidence at the tribunal showed Schertzer immediately approaching the officer and briefing him on what her nephew said had happened. The officer then questioned Calvin, deemed the accident non-criminal and sent him home within 10 minutes — what prosecutor Scott Hutchison called “the gentlest traffic investigation you’ll ever see.”
There was competing evidence about Calvin’s sobriety at the hearing. While one traffic officer testified there was a smell of alcohol on his breath when Calvin later returned to the scene, the cop who sent Calvin home said he did not believe he’d had been drinking, a view also held by a paramedic.
Calvin was not criminally charged in the collision but was ticketed for careless driving.
In closing arguments in June, Schertzer’s lawyer, Joanne Mulcahy, said her client did “the best that she could” to remove herself from the investigation into her nephew, including by standing back and away while the officer from her division questioned Calvin. She said Schertzer rushed to the scene because both Calvin’s parents and sister were out of town.
“Police are humans. They are not robots,” Mulcahy said.
Hutchison, the prosecutor, said Schertzer’s love for her family was precisely why she was in a conflict of interest.
“Her affection for her family is why she shouldn’t have been there,” Hutchison said.
More to come."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
- SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
