A Toronto police sergeant who lost his service firearm and was “less than forthcoming” during the investigation into the missing weapon is facing impaired driving charges after being involved in a single vehicle collision while off-duty.

Sgt. Kyle Petrie, a Toronto police officer of 17 years, is also charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act stemming from the Nov. 1, 2016 incident on St. Clair Ave. W.

Police responded to the collision and Petrie was arrested, according to the notice of hearing filed at the tribunal. After providing breath samples, Petrie was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit.

The allegations haven’t been proven in court.

In a criminal court appearance Wednesday, Petrie's defence lawyer Fred Fedorsen, said the matter may be resolved before a trial, and that he will be getting written instructions from Petrie.

Fedorsen would not comment further outside the courtroom. Petrie couldn’t be reached for comment.

Petrie’s police disciplinary hearing will not proceed until the criminal case is completed. He is currently on administrative duties.

It is the second time the senior officer has appeared before the tribunal in as many years.

In August 2015, Petrie was convicted of four misconduct charges under Ontario’s Police Services Act in connection to the loss of his Toronto police service weapon — a gun believed to have been stolen from the trunk of his car while he shopped at Home Depot and the LCBO, or while the car was parked on the street outside his home.

The gun has never been recovered. Petrie was not criminally charged in the case.

In her decision the tribunal hearing officer, Toronto police Supt. Debra Preston, wrote that “the circumstance in which his firearm was lost violates the Criminal Code.”

The 2014 incident is well-known within Toronto police ranks but was not previously reported by the media, facts noted by the hearing officer in her decision.

“If the public became aware that an issued firearm was not stored properly resulting in its loss within the community, the public would be rightly outraged,” wrote Preston.

“There is a potential impact to community safety as the firearm has never been located.”

Petrie was sentenced to the loss of 42 paid days, some of which were served concurrently, for: improperly storing his firearm in the trunk of his vehicle, failing to report the loss of the weapon, improperly storing ammunition and his Taser in his locker at work, and being “less than honest,” according to the decision, in interviews about the missing gun.

In her ruling, Preston said a demotion in rank for Petrie was something she considered as she was determining the sentence. Petrie, who was working as frontline supervisor at downtown’s 11 division at the time, maintained his rank.

“It is difficult for subordinates to follow the direction of a ranking member who does not follow Service procedures. Any further appearances before the Tribunal will impact Sergeant Petrie’s rank based on the seriousness of his transgressions to date,” she wrote.

According to a summary of the facts in the police tribunal decision, the incident began on Sept. 23, 2014, when he attended a use of force training session at the Toronto Police College. When Petrie left, he took his gun, magazines, ammunition, conducted energy weapon (CEW) and put them into his trunk.

Petrie then left the equipment — “unsafely stored,” contrary to Toronto police procedure — for a significant period of time.

“Upon his return to the vehicle, Sergeant Petrie located his gun belt, CEW and ammunition. His firearm and magazines could not be found,” reads the decision.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Petrie did not immediately report the loss of his gun or the magazine. Tribunal documents do not explain how the gun was discovered missing, but state that an internal investigation was launched “in subsequent days.”

Petrie was interviewed by investigators three times over the next three months and provided varying accounts, including that he had not taken the gun with him in the first place — an assertion contradicted by Toronto Police College video footage “clearly showing” Petrie leaving with his gun, according to the tribunal decision.

He was later found to have provided “incomplete” and “selective” information about where he had gone after leaving the college, initially saying he had only driven home, before revising his account to include a trip to the LCBO and Home Depot.

“His actions are directly in conflict with the Service Priorities which focus on community safety. His firearm has never been recovered which may impact community safety moving forward,” reads the decision.

In her ruling, Preston remarked that the seriousness of Petrie’s misconduct “cannot be understated,” but noted that it was his first appearance before the tribunal, that he pleaded guilty early in the process and had positive evaluations and commendations.

In his submissions on Petrie’s penalty, the officer’s defence lawyer Gary Clewley said Petrie never intended to mislead investigators and was not accused of outright lying or charged with deceit.

Petrie’s behaviour was instead caused by “difficulties in his personal life which caused him to be less than forthright in his interviews,” according to a summary of Clewley’s submissions in the tribunal documents.

Describing the officer as a “mess” at the time of the interviews with professional standards, Clewley said that prior to the first interview, Petrie had not slept for 30 hours.

The prosecutor on the case, Insp. Ian Stratford, agreed that Petrie was in a state of mental disrepair and had not been “willingly deceitful.”

Preston remarked that while Petrie had not intended for his firearm to be stolen, it would not have occurred if he had followed service procedures.

“I can think of few greater concerns for the community as a time when a police firearm is lost or stolen and yet to be recovered,” Preston wrote.

Petrie’s criminal case returns to court Friday.