A Toronto cop implicated in the so-called Neptune Four case is alleging police service’s sole permanent hearing officer — who serves as a de facto judge in disciplinary tribunals — recently committed misconduct himself, and Toronto police “let him off the hook.”

In a rare move, Const. Adam Lourenco has filed a motion to have Toronto police Insp. Richard Hegedus removed as hearing officer in the high-profile case, arguing there is a reasonable perception he may be biased and citing a separate case where the senior cop was found to have ordered a subordinate to commit misconduct.

“The optics here are appalling,” write Lourenco’s lawyers, Peter Brauti and Lawrence Gridin, who frequently represent police in disciplinary and criminal matters.

“The appointment of Hegedus to a prestigious position as the sole permanent hearing officer, so soon after he had apparently committed serious misconduct which the TPS took no steps to investigate, is itself likely to bring discredit upon the police service.”

Toronto police spokesperson Meaghan Gray said in an email that it would be inappropriate to comment on the case because it is still before the tribunal. Hegedus did not respond to a request for comment Monday afternoon.

Lourenco’s motion is the latest twist in a controversial case stemming from the 2011 gunpoint arrest of four black teens in a public housing complex on Neptune Dr., in Lawrence Heights.

The boys — three of them 15 years old at the time, one 16 years old — were on their way to a mentoring session for kids in at-risk neighbourhoods when they were stopped by Lourenco and Const. Scharnil Pais, officers with the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS) unit.

It is alleged that the encounter escalated to violence after one of the boys attempted to exercise his right to walk away; one officer threw punches and drew his gun, backup police cruisers were called, and all four were arrested and charged with assaulting police. The charges were later dropped.

An investigation by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) found the stop violated the boys’ Charter rights. Together, the two officers face four misconduct charges under Ontario’s Police Services Act.

Peter Rosenthal, the lawyer for three of the four boys, says he regrets that Lourenco’s motion is causing yet another delay in a five-year-old case. The four men are now adults working and pursuing post-secondary education, and they would like the case to proceed.

But Rosenthal nonetheless supports the spirit of Lourenco’s motion, which raises larger questions about the inherent lack of independence involved in police discipline proceedings.

Rosenthal said there is a substantial flaw in a system where members of the public complain to an independent body such as the OIPRD — but when that investigation results in misconduct charges, the case goes back into the hands of the police service.

He hopes to see this addressed in the ongoing review of police oversight by Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Michael Tulloch.

“It’s ridiculous, the present situation . . . It becomes an exercise that’s not really independent,” Rosenthal said.

Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association, agrees, saying the union is an “advocate for independent adjudication,” both in general and in this case.

“There is a clear conflict with Hegedus, and we’d like to have him removed from the case,” he said.

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

Lourenco’s motion alleges there is a reasonable perception that Hegedus would be incapable of deciding the Neptune Four case in an impartial manner; the motion is careful to state that the mere optics of bias exist, and Lourenco is not alleging it does exist.

Chief among Lourenco’s concerns is the perception that there may be bad blood between Hegedus and Gridin, Lourenco’s lawyer, from a previous tribunal hearing.

That misconduct case stemmed from a motor vehicle accident in 2013, when Hegedus was acting unit commander at 33 Division. One of Hegedus’ subordinates, Const. Kevin Drake, investigated the collision, which involved a police scout car and a civilian vehicle; Drake concluded the civilian driver was at fault.

As required, Drake stated this finding in an official Ministry of Transportation Motor Vehicle Collision Report. Shortly thereafter, Hegedus ordered Drake to change that finding and conclude the police officer was at fault.

Drake refused to do so because he did not believe that to be true. As a result of this alleged insubordination, Drake was charged with misconduct and the matter went to a police disciplinary hearing.

According to Lourenco’s factum, Gridin, representing Drake at the hearing, made “allegations in a public forum, that Hegedus had engaged in deceit and possibly the criminal offence of obstruction of justice” by asking Drake to change the result of his investigation.

Drake was found guilty at the tribunal, but he appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC). Last year, the review body overturned the finding, and found that Hegedus ordered a subordinate to falsify an official record.

According to Lourenco’s factum, “TPS did absolutely nothing about it.”

“A finding by OCPC implicating Hegedus, a senior officer, in serious misconduct was in effect buried by the Corporate Risk Management branch of TPS. But that was not all. Just one year later Hegedus was made the permanent Hearing Officer for the TPS disciplinary tribunal,” reads the factum.

As a result, there is a reasonable concern that Hegedus may “be predisposed to deciding this case in favour of the TPS, given that the TPS defended Hegedus’ misconduct, insulated him from responsibility for it, and then promoted him to the position of hearing officer,” Lourenco’s motion argues.

The hearing resumes December 7.