Out-of-reach guns of no help to suicidal cop
The Ontario Provincial Police so botched the return to work of a mentally ill, frequently suicidal officer that seven of her colleagues and a supervisor were potentially placed in jeopardy — and even the public.
The 77-page decision from arbitrator Randi Abramsky, the result of both the OPP Association and individual officers filing labour grievances, was issued Aug. 31.
The female officer, identified only as X, first fell ill a few years after the breakup of her 25-year marriage.
She was subsequently diagnosed with recurrent major depressive disorder and characteristics of borderline personality disorder.
While the decision is stinging in its criticism of senior OPP management, including the force’s human resources professionals, and an unnamed psychiatrist “who appears to have repeatedly authorized X’s return to work when he should not have done so,” it is kind to the front-line officers who struggled in vain for months to get help for the woman and guidance for themselves.
As Abramsky put it once, “The OPP turned a ‘blind eye’ to the information it had and allowed the situation to deteriorate until X attempted suicide on Aug. 2, 2015.”
Early that morning, X entered the Barrie, Ont., Enforcement Team office where she had returned to full-time work with the specialized traffic enforcement unit about six months earlier.
“She was in crisis,” Abramsky said in her report, “and felt that she would never be well again. She ‘intended to die by suicide in the office to draw attention to the mistreatment I felt that I had been subjected to at work.’ She ‘intended to use my firearm but it was not in my locker.’
“Instead, she overdosed on Phenobarbital,” a sleep aid and sedative.
(Twelve days earlier, alarmed by her deteriorating condition, her sergeant had ordered her gun removed from the firearm locker.)
She was found unconscious on the floor and rushed to hospital.
After being placed in a medically induced coma, the woman remained in hospital a month and survived. She gave evidence at the labour hearing.
The seven constables, only three of whom filed formal grievances, were awarded $5,000 each, while the sergeant was awarded $7,500, a recognition of how hard he had tried to get the force to pay attention.
Four months before X attempted suicide, there was a telling incident.
It was March 21, 2015.
In that case, back on the job, X improperly arrested a woman for driving under the influence, called the local children’s aid about her two children and then filed a complaint when other officers detected no sign of alcohol or impairment in the driver.
A breathalyzer, performed at X’s insistence, showed the driver had not had a drop to drink, and she was released without charges.
But X filed a complaint against the officer who had disagreed most with the arrest, alleging unprofessional conduct.
He was ultimately “completely exonerated” by the investigation, but not before a job offer from another force mysteriously disappeared.
Though X was once considered a fine officer, she had been off the rails for years.
Originally placed on light duties in January of 2012 because of a knee problem, she soon spiralled out of control.
That February, she attempted suicide for the first time. It was in hospital that she was referred to Dr. Z, as the psychiatrist was identified.
About that time, she also developed “personal feelings” for a former sergeant, called Sgt. Y, regularly emailing him such that he ultimately filed a harassment complaint against her.
After an independent medical examination, she was pronounced unfit to return to work, and a month later, again attempted suicide.
In January of 2013, she was admitted to Homewood Health Centre for an eight-week program. On what was to be her last day there, she attempted suicide a third time.
Throughout that spring, she continued to suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts; on at least three occasions, the OPP were called to her home.
Yet by June, Dr. Z was saying she was well enough to go back to work in a graduated fashion.
Before the OPP even got his note, X had called a crisis line about suicidal thoughts.
An inspector wrote Dr. Z, saying “We continue to be concerned about Ms. X’s well-being … we also have the responsibility to ensure the safety of other officers … as well as members of the public.”
Dr. Z responded the next month, dismissing the June suicidal thoughts as insignificant but adding she should “avoid firearms for now.”
The inspector pointed out, “as you can appreciate, she works in a police setting where other members are wearing their full useof-force equipment and firearms therefore are accessible.”
Dr. Z’s astonishing suggestion? “… If she could be placed somewhere at the OPP where there are as few firearms around her as possible then that would be safest.”
In September, Dr. Z wrote a third letter, again stating she was fit. Within a week, X was yet again admitted to hospital after attempts at suicide.
The OPP was unpersuaded and sent X for another independent assessment.
This time, she was seen by Dr. Maurice Siu, who wrote what Abramsky called one of the most thorough such reports she’d ever read.
He cleared her for work, but recommended she see a psychologist regularly for the next year, that her doctors be allowed to communicate, and that the OPP put in a place a safety plan that allowed other officers and supervisors, if they saw signs of trouble, to contact her doctors.
But the OPP insurer approved only eight sessions with a psychologist, and there was no safety plan.
X was soon once again sending inappropriate emails to Sgt. Y, while her new sergeant begged his bosses for direction.
It consisted of “X coming back … Make it work.”
Her colleagues were worried for her, and for themselves.
The story told in the decision illustrates the difficulty of re-integrating a seriously mentally ill employee back into a “workplace” where weapons are everywhere.
Abramsky recognized that, but said, “X’s rights do not completely override the rights of her colleagues.”
She found that the OPP violated several of its own policies and ordered a number of “public interest” type remedies because there “can be no doubt that there will be future cases” and “lessons need to be learned from what happened to X” and the Barrie Enforcement Team.”
The decision does not say whether X is back at work.