Police watchdog voids force decision
Conviction against Ottawa officer rescinded
An excessive force conviction against an Ottawa police officer has been quashed after nearly a decade of legal limbo.
It comes after a failed bid by Const. Kevin Jacobs’ own police force to have the Supreme Court intervene and the withdrawal of the complaint by the man who said he was brutally taken down by Jacobs in the first place.
In the process, the “marathon” legal saga surrounding Jacobs, observed by police forces and unions across Ontario, defined the standard of proof in all police disciplinary cases in the province.
In a decision released Friday, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission said it “can see no reason” not to bring the matter to a close and “rescind” the 2012 conviction handed down by Ottawa police hearing officer Supt. Jill Skinner, who is now deputy chief of the force.
On Mother’s Day 2009, Jacobs in plainclothes and driving an unmarked police vehicle, spotted Mark Krupa travelling upwards of 140 km/h on the Queensway. Krupa admitted to speeding on Highway 417, but said he didn’t realize the black Grand Prix that pulled up next to him at a red light was an unmarked police car. Furthermore, he said he didn’t believe the plainclothed officer inside was indeed a cop who was trying to pull him over. He effectively fled police.
Krupa was eventually pulled over by a uniformed officer in a cruiser. Jacobs joined the scene, where he said the young man resisted being handcuffed by officers.
Jacobs kneed Krupa’s head while taking him to the ground. Krupa’s face hit the pavement, causing a bloody gash, bruises and a swollen eye. The young man then filed a complaint against police.
In 2012, Jacobs, after a disciplinary hearing, was convicted of one count of unnecessary exercise of authority under the Police Services Act. He was ordered to forfeit 12 days’ pay.
Jacobs appealed that decision to the police commission on the grounds that Skinner had convicted him in error by applying the wrong standard of proof — the lower standard of the “balance of probabilities” versus the higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence.” At the time, both standards were being used by hearing officers to decide the fates of officers charged across the province.
In 2014, the OCPC dismissed Jacobs’ appeal, siding with the original hearing officer.
Jacobs, backed by his police union, took the issue to divisional court for judicial review. In 2015, that application was also dismissed.
But in 2016, the hearing officer’s judgment was set aside by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the correct standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence.
The appeal court then sent the whole case back to the police commission to consider.
Jacobs’ own police force, which prosecuted him for the offence, applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The highest appeal court in the country declined to hear the case, leaving the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision on both the case and the proper standard of proof in police discipline matters as the final say.
The case, back at the police commission for consideration, crumbled after Krupa, eight years after his arrest, withdrew his complaint against Jacobs.
Krupa has an unresolved lawsuit against the police, launched after his arrest, that was on hold pending the outcome of the disciplinary matter. Civil cases are tried on the balance of probabilities, the standard at which a hearing officer previously convicted Jacobs.
“We can proceed to resolve. If we can’t resolve it, then we can continue the civil action against the Ottawa police,” said Lawrence Greenspon, Krupa’s lawyer.