Article content continued

He became angry after she read aloud portions of an email from the officer’s sergeant, she said.

The officer, who denied the allegations against him, testified he thought the employee’s questions were too personal, and felt as if she didn’t believe him. He was also frustrated at the pace his application was moving, he said.

He said he didn’t know how many “F bombs” he dropped during the conversation. He also said he doesn’t believe police officers must adhere to a minimum standard of behaviour when they’re not in uniform — a belief that is “erroneous,” Kamins ruled.

The officer said his anger was directed at the sergeant, not the disability manager. She shouldn’t have felt intimidated, he said — it’s “not true or she’s a liar.”

Bill Newton, who represented the officer at the hearing, said the officer used “very foul language” but implored Kamins to consider the officer’s health issues.

Four months after the hearing ended, Newton asked for Kamins to reopen it, saying he had potential new evidence to introduce. Kamins rejected that request.

On. Feb. 25, Kamins found the officer guilty of misconduct according to the Police Service Regulation.

The written decision does not make any reference to a potential penalty. According to the Police Service Regulation, a presiding officer who finds a police member guilty of misconduct will issue one or more of a reprimand; a course of treatment or participation in a rehabilitation program; forfeiture of up to 40 hours of work; a suspension of up to 80 work hours; reduction of seniority; reduction in rank; or dismissal from the police service.

jfrench@postmedia.com