In the matter of the Police Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.

P-17 and
In the matter of the Police Service Regulation, Alta. Reg. 356/1990

And in the matter of a complaint and disciplinary proceedings against

Regimental Number Constable D. Pizzolato #3171
Of the Calgary Police Service

Penalty Decision

*Note: At the request of the Presenting Officer and with consent of the cited officer, a
ban on publication was put in place on the identity of the victim in this matter. Her name
is redacted from this decision and she will be referred to as Ms. M.

Table of Contents

Procedural Background ………………………………………………………… Page 1

Summary of Proceedings ………………………………………………………. Page 2

Evidence …………………………………………………………………………. Page 3

Submissions of the Presenting Officer …………………………………………Page 6

Submissions of the Cited Officer ………………………………………………. Page 9

Discussion/Analysis ……………………………………………………………... Page 12

Discussion Re Penalty ………………………………………………………….. Page 26

Order ……………………………………………………………………………… Page 40

Procedural Background

On 2019 April 24, Constable D. Pizzolato #3171 was charged with the following two
counts of disciplinary misconduct:

Count #1

Discreditable Conduct contrary to S. 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation.

Constable D. Pizzolato #3171 is alleged to have committed Discreditable Conduct by

doing anything prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the
police service, in that he communicated and interacted with Ms. M when inappropriate
to do so and in a manner that is considered inappropriate and unprofessional, contrary
to Section 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation.

1
 a) Between June 18, 2016, and June 22nd, 2016, in the City of Calgary, in the
Province of Alberta, Constable Pizzolato was the investigating officer who
apprehended Ms. M. under the authority of the Mental Health Act. The
subsequent text messages to her included communication that was of a personal
nature.

b) He attended her residence while he was off duty and took her out for ice cream
for approximately one hour before returning her home.

Count #2

Insubordination by communicating and interacting with Ms. M. in a manner that is

contrary to Calgary Police Service conduct and discipline policy contrary to Section
5(2)(g)(2) of the Police Service Regulation.

a) Between June 18, 2016, and June 22, 2016, in the City of Calgary, in the
Province of Alberta, Constable Pizzolato did not comply with the Conduct of
Discipline Policy Section 1(2)(b) as it relates to conduct and code of conduct and
the direction that an officer will respect the confidentiality of any information
obtained in the course of his duty. He used information obtained as a result of
his position as a police officer to communicate in a personal nature with Ms. M.

b) He did not comply with the Conduct and Discipline Policy Section 1(2(n) as it
relates to conduct and code of conduct and the direction that an officer must be
cognizant of the fact that an officer, whether on duty or off duty, is continually
under the scrutiny of the community and that the community expects a high
standard of conduct from its officers.

Summary of Proceedings

Constable Pizzolato made his first appearance on May 30 th, 2019. At that time the
reading of the charges was waived. Constable Pizzolato reserved his plea and the
matter was set over to June 20th, 2019. On that date, the cited officer was represented
by Counsel who requested an adjournment to review disclosure. He also indicated that
he and the Presenting Officer had conversations with respect to a resolution of the
matter. The adjournment was granted, and the matter set over to September 4th, 2019.
On that date an additional adjournment was requested, and the matter was set to
September 12th, 2019. On that date, the cited officer entered admit pleas to the two
counts listed in the Notice and Record of Professional Conduct Proceedings.

An Agreed Statements of Facts was entered as an exhibit in the proceedings with this
statement of facts being signed by and admitted to by the cited officer. After reviewing
the Agreed Statement of Facts coupled with the admit pleas, the charges were found to
be proven and Constable Pizzolato was found guilty of the two counts of misconduct.

The two parties then proceeded with their submissions on penalty.

2
Evidence

Exhibits:

Exhibit 1 Notice and Record of Disciplinary Hearing;

Exhibit 2 Presiding Officer Appointment Memo;

Exhibit 3 Presenting Officer Appointment Memo;

Exhibit 4 Agreed Statement of Facts

Exhibit 5 Submission on Disposition by the Presenting Officer.

Agreed Statement of Facts

1. On June 18, 2016, 2130 hours, Constable Pizzolato responded to a check on

welfare complaint at the residence of Ms. M. (22 years old). A friend of Ms. M.'s
had contacted police and advised that Ms. M. had ingested Tylenol and had told
a friend that she no longer wished to live.

2. Ms. M. advised Constable Pizzolato that she had a history of suicidal ideation
and that she had ingested at least an additional seven Tylenol. Constable
Pizzolato apprehended Ms. M. under the Mental Health Act and EMS transported
her to the Peter Lougheed Hospital Mental Health Unit (PLH). Ms. M. was
admitted to the mental health unit under a Form 10 where she remained until
June 22, 2016. (Four days).

3. A few hours after leaving Ms. M. at the hospital, Constable Pizzolato began
texting her from his personal cell phone, the contents of which went beyond the
official duties of a police officer and diverged into a personal conversation.
Copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

4. Ms. M. advised a security officer at the hospital, (Ms. Phillips) that she was
texting with the Calgary Police as they were setting up community support for
her. Ms. Phillips reviewed the text messages, which she felt were inappropriate,
and then spoke with Psychiatric Nurse Ms. Bailey, who contacted CPS on June
19, 2016, to report what she believed to be inappropriate text messages from a
police officer to a patient.

5. Ms. M. also advised Ms. Baker and Ms. Dougherty, her mentors at the Peter
Lougheed Hospital, that she was texting with a police officer. Ms. Baker and Ms.
Dougherty reviewed the numerous text messages and felt they were
inappropriate and forwarded the information to Ms. M.'s manager, Ms. Neil.

3
6. On June 21, 2016, at 1259 hours, Ms. M., (assisted by Ms. Dougherty), crafted a
text message to Constable Pizzolato advising him that she was only interested in
the resources that CPS had to offer. However, Constable Pizzolato and Ms. M.
continued to text. In the text messages provided, Constable Pizzolato does not
provide community resource information.

On June 22, 2016, Ms. M. was released from the hospital. At approximately
22:03 hours, Constable Pizzolato arrived at her residence off duty and in his
personal vehicle. He greeted Ms. M. with a hug that Ms. M. later told
investigators made her feel uncomfortable. Constable Pizzolato drove her to
McDonald's for ice cream. Ms. M. later stated to investigators that she felt
pressured to go with Constable Pizzolato and “was scared about what he might
do to her as similar things have happened to her in her past.” Ms. M. later told
investigators that she didn't feel safe but didn't know what to do.

7. Constable Pizzolato parked in a lit area across from the parking lot of
McDonald's. He told Ms. M. about his ex-wife and family. He talked about his
motorcycle and how she could take a ride with him. Ms. M. later told investigators
that the conversation made her feel “creepy” and that Constable Pizzolato
touched Ms. M. on her arm and placed his hand on leg, causing her to feel
uncomfortable and to move away closer to the door.

8. Due to concerns about Constable Pizzolato's contact with Ms. M. the same day
that Ms. M. was released from hospital, Ms. Baker contacted CPS public safety
communications and requested a check on welfare for Ms. M.

9. A patrol car arrived at Ms. M.'s residence while Constable Pizzolato and Ms. M.
were at McDonald's. When Constable Pizzolato returned Ms. M. to her
residence and saw the patrol car waiting in front, he dropped Ms. M. off at the
side of the building.

10. Ms. M. states that during her encounter with Constable Pizzolato she didn't know
what was going to happen or how to stop it. Since she didn't like confrontation,
she just went along with it. She also states that she is a survivor of exploitation
from the time she was a little girl when she was being used by men in a sexual
manner for money.

11. At the time of this incident, Ms. M. was 22 years of age; Constable Pizzolato was
48. According to her case workers and unbeknown to Constable Pizzolato at the
time, Ms. M. is a victim of exploitation in human trafficking since childhood. She
has been diagnosed with PTSD stemming from her past trauma and suffers from
depression, suicide ideation, multiple suicide attempts, and anxiety.

12. Constable Pizzolato has worked for the Calgary Police Service since April 1997.
21 of his 22 and a half years he worked patrol/field. Calgary Police records
indicate that Constable Pizzolato has previous documented incidents involving

4
 unsolicited contact with women he encountered in the line of duty. Two of those
events were dealt with by Constable Pizzolato's superior officers. On May 31,
2016, just a few weeks before his encounter with Ms. M., Constable Pizzolato
was counselled by his staff sergeant about contact taking place with a female he
had encountered in the line of duty on June 3, 2015. He was advised not to
contact any woman socially who he had investigated or had any official police
involvement with.

The Presenting Officer then read a “Victim Impact Statement” from Ms. M into the
record. This statement was taken from Ms. M’s statement provided to the investigators.
The statement was reviewed and vetted by the cited officer. The statement as read, as
follows:
I was worried because he knew where I lived, and he had my phone number. I didn't
know how he would react if I said no or didn't text him. I didn't know if he would
come to my apartment. I was worried because he could be in uniform. He had
power, and he is also a really tall guy. I was also worried because he has access to
my information through the police. I was confused and did not know how to
approach this with him. I talked to him like he was a friend, not knowing what to do. I
did not want to get anyone in trouble because I didn't want him to retaliate and try to
find me or be upset.
I told Ms. Kathy [who is her case worker] I was scared and didn't feel safe and didn't
know what to do. I told her that I thought he was coming in uniform, and the seniors
in my building would let him into the building. I did not want him in my apartment, so
I thought it would be better to meet him down in a common area. I was scared, and
this was triggering stuff from my past. I don't like confrontation. I was uncomfortable
because it was so late at night. I was confused because sometimes he acted like a
police officer and sometimes, he acted like he wanted to date me. I tried not to show
that I was scared or uncomfortable but just act normal. I tried to treat him like a
normal guy friend. I was confused whether he was acting like as police officer, a
father figure, a friend or flirting with me.
I wanted to write this victim impact statement because I am working so hard to heal
from my past. I'm a survivor of exploitation and have been used for pay in a sexual
manner by men from the time I was a little girl.
I didn't even see how Constable Dave did -- was not healthy as many guys have
talked to me in a flirtatious way like he did. I didn't even know until Ms. Casey
pointed it out to me, and I was shocked and saddened. I didn't want anything other
than the contacts he said he would give me, but I did find it peculiar how long it took
to send the contacts; in fact, he never did send me any contacts.
At first, I felt grateful and encouraged by his texts. I felt special and thought it was
cool that a policeman actually could be nice and personable and want to help me.
But after a while, I began to feel confused as to how I should talk to him. Should I

5
 talk to him as a policeman or as a friend or as a father figure? I wondered if he was
investigating me for more information via 21st century technology like texting.
The night he came to get me I felt pressured and scared about what he might do to
me. Similar things have happened to me in the past, and it triggered me. The other
reason I wanted to do this statement is because maybe I'm not the only one, and he
will be able to get the help he needs.
Submissions of the Presenting Officer
The Presenting Officer advises that the Police Service is seeking the dismissal of
Constable Pizzolato.
Ms. Campbell advises Constable Pizzolato has been a member of the service for
twenty-two years and is currently a Senior Constable Level 2. He has received
distinguished service award for 12 years, and his last three performance assessments
from 2014 and 2015 contain positive feedback.
Ms. Campbell advised Ms. M. was twenty-two years of age at the time of this incident,
and Constable Pizzolato was forty-eight. Ms. M. has been victimized for most of her
childhood and operates at the level of someone between the age of fourteen to sixteen
years of age.
She states according to all of the witnesses that Professional Standards interviewed for
this investigation, Ms. M.'s diminished capacity was immediately apparent to everyone
who interacted with her.
Addressing the seriousness of Constable Pizzolato's misconduct, she says it cannot be
overstated. He began inappropriate conversations with Ms. M. within two hours of
leaving her at the hospital for attempting to take her own life. His pursuit of her included
approximately 75 to 100 text messages between them and attending her residence on
the very day she was released from the hospital. He has a history of attempting
personal relationships with females he's encountered in the line of duty. And just two
weeks before this incident, he was counselled by his staff sergeant to not contact
women he had made contact within the line of duty.
He has shown an inability to comply with direction and conduct himself in a professional
and ethical manner that is required by a public officer despite those warnings from his
supervisor. This type of conduct by an officer towards a particularly vulnerable person
significantly reduces the public's confidence and the Service's ability to serve and
protect. Once that confidence is lost, it's very hard to regain.
Given the role that police officers play in enforcing the law, without meaningful
consequences, Constable Pizzolato's inappropriate behaviour places the administration
of justice into disrepute.
Constable Pizzolato was in a position of authority and trust when he encountered Ms.
M. Ms. Campbell submits that his behaviour was exploitive and predatory in nature and

6
contrary to what is expected and required of an officer in such circumstances. She
further describes the behaviour as premeditated.
She advises that at least three case workers and a professional mental health nurse
saw the messages between Constable Pizzolato and Ms. M. All believed Constable
Pizzolato was entirely inappropriate.
She further advises that Ms. Baker was so concerned about Ms. M.'s safety she actually
called the police to have a check on welfare of Ms. M. on the day she was released
from hospital.
Ms. Campbell submits that as a member of the Police Service for twenty-two years
Constable Pizzolato would have easily recognized Ms. M.'s vulnerability even if he was
unaware of her past. Rather than helping her, Constable Pizzolato took advantage of
Ms. M. for what clearly appears to be his own personal gratification.
None of his communications with her discussed or provided community support
services, a claim that he used to initiate the contact in the first place. Rather they were
all personal in nature, too familiar, too suggestive, inappropriate, unsolicited, unwanted,
and wholly unprofessional.
Ms. Campbell concluded her verbal submissions stating Constable Pizzolato's
communications with and pursuit of Ms. M. fell short of any type of safe police practice.
Despite warnings to the contrary by superior officers, Constable Pizzolato continued a
pattern of behaviour with a young woman who did not have the requisite skills to protect
herself. “It is respectfully submitted that Constable Pizzolato’s misconduct is so
reprehensible, it is wholly incompatible with the continuation of an employee relationship
and of such a nature that he is no longer fit or suitable to hold the public office of a
police officer. Accordingly, the Service is seeking his dismissal.”
In addition to her verbal submissions, her written submissions are contained in Exhibit
#5. In those submissions, Ms. Campbell addresses the Amery Principals and other
factors.
She spoke of the “moral culpability” of Constable Pizzolato stating he has a history of
attempting personal relationships with females he has encountered in the line of duty.
Two weeks prior to his encounter with Ms. M. he was counselled by Staff Sergeant
Grant about this type of concerning behaviour telling him to not contact any women he
had met in the line of duty.
She further states Constable Pizzolato’s history reveals a pattern of inappropriate,
unwanted conduct towards women he has encountered and has shown an inability to
comply with direction and conduct himself in a professional and ethical manner required
of his public office.
Speaking to the consequences to the public and the administration of law, Ms.
Campbell states “predatory and exploitive conduct by a police officer towards a

7
particularly vulnerable citizen significantly reduces the public’s confidence in the
Service’s ability to serve and protect. Once lost, that confidence is extremely hard to
regain.” 1
She adds given the role that police officer’s play in enforcing the law, without meaningful
consequences, Constable Pizzolato’s inappropriate behavior places the administration
of justice into disrepute and places member of the public at risk, especially vulnerable
people.
Ms. Campbell then spoke about Constable Pizzolato’s overall fitness for police service.
She speaks of his career and assignments, and of his assessments dated 2012, 2104
and 2015. She stated the assessments contain positive feedback speaking to his ability
and experience.
Ms. Campbell also provided details on a “Disciplinary Agreement” dated December 5,
2016 where Constable Pizzolato was assessed a reprimand and a suspension from
duty without pay for eighty hours pursuant to s. 19(1)(b) of the PSR. The facts of the
matter related to a sexual assault complaint involving an eleven-year-old victim which
Constable Pizzolato closed the file as “inactive.” His supervisor determined there was
more work to be done on the file changing the status to “active.” Despite this, two
months later, Constable Pizzolato again changed the status to “inactive.” The victim’s
mother voiced concern over the lack of follow up and the matter was re-assigned to the
Centralized General Investigation Section for follow-up.
Ms. Campbell states it bears repeating that Ms. M. was a particularly vulnerable young
woman whose circumstances made her the target of unwanted sexual advances of men
from a very young age. Her life circumstances had a profound effect on her and her
ability to defend and protect herself in any meaningful way.
She states Constable Pizzolato’s experience as a police officer with over 22 years of
service he would have easily recognized Ms. M.’s vulnerability even if he was unaware
of her past.
Rather than helping her, he took advantage of Ms. M. for what clearly appears to be his
own personal gratification. None of his communication with her discussed or provided
community support services, the claim he used to initiate contact. The text messages
were all personal in nature, “too familiar, too suggestive, inappropriate, unsolicited
unwanted and wholly unprofessional.”
Ms. Campbell provided several disciplinary matters that she put forward as “Like
Instances of Misconduct.” She stated in each of the cases provided, the officers were
disciplined for inappropriate contact with citizens they encountered in the line of duty. In
Armstrong v. Peel Regional Police, the penalty of dismissal was upheld on appeal. She
submits that several distinguishing factors render the matter involving Constable
Pizzolato more aggravating and serious that the like cases provided. She states that
1
Exhibit 5, page 13

8
none of the cases provided involved complainants of a diminished capacity. (The
exception being the case of Emmett where it was stated that the complainant has
mental health issues, however no findings regarding her vulnerabilities or specific
mental health issues were provided).
Secondly, she states, there is no indication that any of the complainants were
vulnerable due to childhood abuse and exploitation, suffering from depression, suicidal,
or hospitalized for mental health issues while the officers were engaging them in
inappropriate contact.
She concluded stating Constable Pizzolato’s communications with, and pursuit of Ms.
M. fall short of any type of “safe police practices.” Despite warnings to the contrary by
superior officers, Constable Pizzolato continued a disturbing pattern of behavior with a
young woman who did not have the requisite skills to protect herself. She states that
Constable Pizzolato’s misconduct is so reprehensible that it is wholly incompatible with
the continuation of the employee relationship and of such a nature that he is no longer
fit or suitable to hold the public office of police officer.
Submissions of the Cited Officer
Mr. Dunn commenced his submissions providing some detail about the personal
circumstances of Constable Pizzolato, moving on to a summarization of his career as a
police officer.
In reviewing the “PEAKS Assessments” and “Behavioral Events” contained in his
personnel file he states that this officer has a “very strong service history.”
He further states that one of the things that comes to the forefront as noted by many of
his superior officers is that he treats member of the public with compassion and
respect.

He adds that this is also reflected in the reference letters provided by members of the
police service contained in his book of authorities. He states that these letters show that
Constable Pizzolato has a policing style that may be somewhat different than other
police officers. “He wears his heart on his sleeve and he doesn't police in a formalistic,
mechanical, and detached manner; he builds relationships with members of the public.
He interacts, he consoles, he counsels, and as a result of this, it's my observation that
he often becomes emotionally invested in some situations with victims and individuals
that he has interactions with.”

Mr. Dunn states that the police service needs officers like this; those who can exude a
degree of compassion. He adds: “But on the flip side, at the wrong times, without the
appropriate boundaries, it can have negative effects, and I think part of the negative
effects are -- you see within the fact scenario at the case at bar, where the level of
personalized relationships went too far. It was conducted with poor judgment. It
showed a lack of self-restraint, and it was certainly inappropriate for the circumstances.
All of those are conceded by the defence in this particular case.”

9
Mr. Dunn states they don’t agree with the characterization that this was “predatory and
exploitive conduct.” They do agree with the comments of the Presenting Officer when in
reference to the text messages, she described them as: “Rather, they were all personal
in nature, too familiar, too suggestive, inappropriate, unsolicited, unwanted, and wholly
unprofessional.” Mr. Dunn describes that as an accurate characterization of the
interaction between Constable Pizzolato and Ms. M.

He states that this is what “marks the bright line between dismissal and a lesser
sanction.”

Mr. Dunn states that Constable Pizzolato recognizes that he struggles with issues of
boundaries in the way he communicates. He struggles with some degree of controlling
his emotions, becoming attached to victims, becoming emotionally involved with the
victims of crime, and he has sought treatment for that. He referenced the reports of Dr.
Amundson from whom he has been seeking treatment since November 2018.

He states Constable Pizzolato has indicated he worked on impulse control, appropriate

boundaries, verbally, and appropriate boundaries, physically. By way of a general
example, intrapersonal space issues.

He states Dr. Amundson’s provides an opinion that Constable Pizzolato’s prognosis “is
remarkably good” and uses a phrase stating “The man who was then is not the man
now". And with this I could not be in more agreement.”

In the report, Dr. Amundson also states: “Regarding professional competency, it is

certainly my provisional and therapeutic opinion Constable Pizzolato presents no risk
to the public in his law enforcement role at this time.”

Mr. Dunn advises that Constable Pizzolato now has the cognitive and emotional skills to
overcome these past challenges.
He then addresses the aggravating factor that Constable Pizzolato was counselled a
few weeks prior to the incident, not to have personal contact with females he met in the
course of his duties. He submits that Constable Pizzolato didn’t have the tools or skills
needed to correct his pattern of behaviour. He sought out the professional help that was
required and made the appropriate adjustments.
He adds that now that Constable Pizzolato has the understanding of the underlying
dynamics causing the past behaviour and the tools to correct it, his prior mistakes of
overstepping these particular boundaries have been identified, it is the view of Dr.
Amundson his risk to recidivate is low.
Mr. Dunn states that Constable Pizzolato takes full responsibility for crossing
boundaries and indicated that he had good intentions. He recognized he crossed a line
in his contact in communications with the Ms. M. He said that he empathized to some
extent and had a connection with her because of the loneliness and suicidal ideations
that he had struggled with. He recognizes using his personal phone was a bad idea; it
10
was wrong. It was an error in judgment. The meeting in the car at McDonald's, he
acknowledges that the physical contact was inappropriate.
Constable Pizzolato indicates that he was not aware of the subject's diagnosis or her
past at the time. There was no discussion of her disorders, her diminished capacity, or
that she was a victim of sexual assault. Constable Pizzolato indicated that he knew
what he observed and what he was told; that she was sad, that she was lonely, that she
had no family or friends to turn to for support. And that was upon which the connection
was built.
They disagree with the suggestion that Constable Pizzolato knew that this was a person
of diminished capacity. He states it goes back to the issue of whether this offence was
predatory, exploitive, or whether it was inappropriate, unprofessional. The defence
concedes it was inappropriate and unprofessional.
He then speaks of Constable Pizzolato’s financial situation and his current obligations.
He currently has a second job to help him meet his responsibilities. He states that
dismissal would result in a considerable financial burden for him and would necessitate
him cashing in his pension.
Mr. Dunn then speaks about the text messages stating that the language in the
messages was of a less aggressive nature than in the like cases provided.
He states the facts is the cases that resulted in dismissal are far more egregious than
the facts in this matter. The facts of this matter are more like the matters offered that
did not result in dismissal. After providing the details of those matters, Mr. Dunn stated
those are the cases that should be guiding the decision in this matter.
Mr. Dunn states that the Service seeking dismissal is disproportionate stating it is
overreach. He states the case law suggests that a range of penalty of 18 days on the
low end, and a reduction in rank of several levels on the high end would be appropriate.
In addition, an order to continue treatment with Dr. Amundson would be appropriate. He
does add that specific deterrence is not a factor in this matter since Constable Pizzolato
has corrected the behaviors that led to the misconduct. He does state that general
deterrence is something that still must be kept in mind.
Continued Submissions of the Presenting Officer
Ms. Campbell addressed the cited officer’s comment that Constable Pizzolato’s
touching of the arm and leg is his normal interaction with people because he is
compassionate. She cautions that to parse his actions over the course of the three-day
period is not what should be done. The totality of the circumstances shows that the
touching of the arm and leg becomes something totally different.
Regarding the counselling received from Dr. Amundson, she describes that as
commendable and encouraged. She cautions that the reports from Dr. Amundson are
“Cryptic.” She describes them as “letters of reference” and it is unknown from the letters

11
whether he had disclosure, or any information respect of the particular circumstances.
There is no formal psychological or risk assessment, so it is unknown what the basis of
his opinion that Constable Pizzolato does not pose a risk in any way, shape, or form.
She states that the one thing that keeps reverberating and that distinguishes this case
from the like cases in case law that have been provided, is that Ms. M. had just
attempted suicide and was in the hospital for that and being admitted under Form 10
when Constable Pizzolato began communications. The communications persisted for
the three days, culminating in his physical attendance at her home the evening of the
day she is released from the hospital. That's an aggravating fact of this case that I think
just continually bears coming back to. She describes this as a “case of pursuit.”
Statement of Constable Pizzolato
“I just want to say that the 22-and-a-half years that I've had here, this is definitely
a low point. It brings back memories of me running towards a car that was on fire
and my uniform belt being [sic] to myself trying to rescue them, and here I am
judged on an occasion where I was unprofessional and profoundly causing
discredit to the Calgary Police Service. I just want to apologize to Ms. M. of any
stress or undue hardship that I've caused upon her, and I want to say I wear my
heart on my sleeve, and it's always been a -- my way of communication that I'm
very empathetic. And I crossed a boundary here, and I honestly thought that I
was the only person that was going to make a difference in her life. My judgment
was askew by my caring for her and having a bond with her that I felt. I didn't
perceive her as having any dysfunction other than the immediate suicide risk,
and I honestly thought I was going to be the difference. If I didn't follow through
with the promise that I wasn't going to meet her afterwards, I felt that the same
thing would've happened -- the same thing that happened to me some years
before, where I Formed somebody at the Peter Lougheed Hospital and I told
them I'd meet for coffee afterwards, and he jumped off the LRT bridge. That's it.
I'm sorry.” 2
Discussion/Analysis
Constable Pizzolato has pleaded guilty to two counts of disciplinary misconduct with
regards to his actions relating to Ms. M. between June 18, 2016, and June 22nd, 2016.
Fashioning an appropriate penalty for misconduct is a task that requires as assessment
of numerous factors. To assist Chiefs and Presiding Officers, in 1993 in a matter known
as Amery v. Young, 3 the ALERB provided a non-exhaustive list of principles (factors) to
be considered in coming to a fair and just sanction.

The factors in Amery which have been referred to by the Court of Appeal have widely
been viewed as the guidelines for imposing discipline in police disciplinary matters in

2
Transcript. Page 84-85. L. 9-26, L 1-8
3
ALERB Amery and Young, #007-93

12
Alberta. This statement of principles or factors regarding disciplinary sanctions are
addressed as follows.

1. The principle purpose of police discipline is to advance the organizational

objective of effective and efficient police services to the community.

Police agencies are responsible for ensuring they provide effective and efficient policing
services to the communities they serve. The frontline police officer is the face of any
policing organization. They are the individuals who have the day to day contacts with
the public and whose interactions are judged by those members of the public.

The responsibility to maintain the trust and confidence of the community lies with those
frontline officers as much as it does the organization as a whole. This goes beyond
answering calls for service, preventing and solving crime. It involves working and living
by the core values of the Service and the expectations of the citizens police officers
serve. As holders of public office entrusted with the safety and security of the public, no
less can or should be expected.

Constable Pizzolato’s actions are counter to promoting effective and efficient policing
services to the public. He abused his oath to office. He used his position as a police
officer for his personal advantage. Being a person in authority, he exercised control over
a vulnerable young woman for personal gratification. The staff at the Peter Lougheed
Centre viewed Constable Pizzolato’s actions with such concern that they called the
police out of concern for the welfare of Ms. M. Additionally they filed the complaint
regarding his conduct.

The maintenance of public respect is one of the highest priorities of any Police Service.
A service that loses the respect of the people they are serving loses the support they
need to fulfill the organizational objective of providing effective and efficient police
services to the community.

The community at large has a vested interest in the actions of a police officer who has
committed misconduct. They may pass judgement on the officer; but how the Police
Service reacts and works to correct the situation is also of paramount interest and
concern to the community.

2. A fair and just sanction in the circumstances is the goal. The public
interest must be considered in those cases where it is engaged.

This is a matter where the public interest is significant.

The impacts of Constable Pizzolato’s actions relating to Ms. M. are significant. Her trust
in the police has been adversely affected. I will discuss this more later in this decision.

There has also been an erosion of trust involving the staff at the Peter Lougheed
Centre. These partners of the CPS have witnessed a breach of trust between a police

13
officer who is a person in authority, and a vulnerable young woman under their care.
This is also the case with the staff at the Boys and Girls Club. These interests must be
considered.

In determining a fair and just penalty many factors must be considered. An appropriate
balance must be struck and the sanction that is imposed must meet the overall goals of
police discipline and must be reflective of the public interest. A disciplinary penalty must
be reflective of the individual circumstances of the officer, and the underpinning facts of
the proven disciplinary misconduct. It must be fair, and it must be reasonable.

The complainants, Ms. M., as well as the general public have the right and the
expectation that its police officers be of the highest ethical and moral character. They
also have the right and expectation that their Police Service will do whatever it can to
ensure that this is the case.

3. In cases where organizational or administrative factors have played a

significant role in contributing to the misconduct that contribution must be
considered. In those instances organizational policy or procedure should take
priority for correction. Any individual discipline imposed in such circumstances
must consider the overall context.

This factor has no applicability in this matter.

4. A remedial approach, which seeks to correct and educate, rather than to

punish, should be considered as a priority in those circumstances where it is
appropriate. In the Alberta context Regulation 17(3) promotes the use of special
training or professional counseling. The constructive use of this option, in some
circumstances may work to achieve this goal.

One of the primary goals of police discipline is to help a police officer learn from their
past behavior so this behavior is not repeated in the future. Count One of the
misconduct charges committed by Constable Pizzolato is not the result of a lack of
training, or a failure to abide by the policies and procedures of the Police Service. This
was the result of a flawed moral compass and a significant lack of judgement. These
are not traits that can be corrected through education or training.

While every attempt should be made to see if rehabilitation is possible, with Constable
Pizzolato is it possible?

There is also the question on whether rehabilitation is even appropriate given the
seriousness of the offences committed by Constable Pizzolato. This was discussed by
the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench in the Saskatoon City Police Association v,
Saskatoon Police Commission 4 at page 17:

4
Saskatoon City Police Association v, Saskatoon Police Commission [2000] S.J. No. 477, 2000 SKQB
339, Q.B. No. 2662 of 1999 J.e.s. Goldenberg, J.

14
 "In my view, remedial efforts, as described in Section 60 of the Act are only
required where reasonably appropriate. Some acts of misconduct or commission
of crime require peremptory dismissal of a police officer not only by reason of the
nature of the misconduct or crime committed, but because the actions of the
member clearly demonstrate a lack of suitability for the position of police officer.
In these circumstances, I do not believe the legislature intended that a Chief of
Police be required to attempt remedial efforts and assess remedial efforts prior to
forming the opinion that a member is unsuitable."

With regards to count two, the application of this principle is appropriate where it is
deemed that the behavior that led to the misconduct can be corrected through
education, training or counseling. For example, a member is unaware of a policy that
led to a charge of insubordination. Training on that policy would be in order. A member
applies an inappropriate level of force, anger management and use of force training
could be appropriate.

In this instance, the policy is a reminder that confidentiality must be adhered to and that
that as an officer they are under the scrutiny of the community and that the community
expects a high standard of conduct from its officers.

This is not something that requires training or re-training. It is common sense.

5. Both aggravating and mitigating factors should be considered in

determining a just sanction or punishment.

To be discussed separately.

6. Deterrence of other police officers and maintenance of public respect for

the police are legitimate goals in the context of police discipline.

The defence states that there is no need for specific deterrence in this matter. He states
Constable Pizzolato has recognized his failings and has taken the appropriate steps to
remedy his behaviour. He states the counselling sessions with Dr. Amundson have
resulted in him obtaining the tools he needs to ensure his behaviour is controlled in the
future. I will discuss the information provided by Dr. Amundson later in this decision.

With regards to general deterrence, this is a significant factor. This type of behaviour or
variations of this type of behaviour are becoming more and more prevalent in policing
and the Calgary Police Service has not been immune. A clear and strong message
must be sent to all members that this type of behavior can result in significant
consequences. It is an affront to the oath taken as a police officer who is a Public Office
holder, a person in a position of trust, and a person in authority.

7. Consistency in disciplinary sanctions should be strived for. Like instances

of misconduct should attract like sanctions.

15
In previous penalty decisions I have commented on how imposing a penalty is a
subjective process that is as individual to the circumstances of the matter as it is to the
circumstances of the cited officer. As stated in Furlong “The fitness of a sanction
depends on numerous factors, and is particularly sensitive to the factual underpinnings
of the offences.”

No matters are exactly analogous to other matters. Penalties from other matters can be
used to provide guidelines for a Presiding Officer on what an acceptable range of the
available penalties are. That continues to be the case here.

This principle has been discussed by the ABCA. In Kube v Edmonton (Police Service) 5
Justice Slatter made observations on the utility of precedents on penalty:

(8) In addition, it appears that both the Presiding Officer and the Board had
before them the “leading cases” on penalties in police disciplinary decisions. The
additional cases that were tendered were merely further examples of the
application of those principles. Such decisions are of little precedential value: R.
v Arcand, 2010 ABCA 363 (CanLII) at paras. 213-27, 415-9, 499 AR 1. As the
Court noted in R. v B.S.M., 2011 ABCA 105 (CanLII) at para. 7, 502 AR 253:

. . . In theory, trying to set some outer limits for a sentence range by

examining precedents has some utility, but in practice it is often
unsatisfactory. Typically the outer limits are too far apart to be meaningful,
and the facts are all over the map. Few if any cases really match on their
facts; so all one can ordinarily produce is a Frankenstein’s monster, by
trying to graft two or more precedents together. Use of precedent for
factual questions, especially for numbers for sentences or damages, is not
usually a useful exercise. . . . Instead, the value of sentencing precedent
lies in its principles and (where given) its starting points.

In Camrose (Chief of Police) v MacDonald 6 at para 28, the court stated:

“Both Amery and Lingl support the policy of treating like cases alike where
possible in light of all the relevant factors. But this is a statement of the
need for a fair and predictable consistency of approach, not a rule in
favour of regimented outcomes and without the need to properly assess
all the relevant factors in each case.”

In A v Edmonton Police Service 7 the LERB referenced MacDonald at para 115:

“We note, first, the Court of Appeal’s guidance in MacDonald, i.e., that a fair and
predictable consistency of approach is called for, without that leading to
regimented outcomes detached from assessment of the factors in a given case.

5
Kube v Edmonton (Police Service), 2013 ABCA 438
6
Camrose (Chief of Police) v MacDonald, 2013 ABCA 422 (CanLII)
7
A v Edmonton Police Service, 2014 CanLII 11016 (AB LERB)

16
 Outcomes in like cases are of value in assessing penalty, but they must not be
allowed to drive an outcome regardless of present circumstances.”

The Presenting Officer and the Cited Officer have provided several matters they refer to
as like instances of misconduct. They also provided comment on the difficulty of finding
like cases due to the lack of a proper database. Through my personal knowledge and
research, I have several additional cases that will be discussed in my comments on
penalty in addition to those offered by the parties.

In factor #5, the Board then went on to list a non-exhaustive list of aggravating and
mitigating factors including:

(a) Previous good record of the officer

I have reviewed the materials provided at tab 5 of exhibit #5, these being the PEAKS
Assessments and Behavioral Events of Constable Pizzolato. The 2014 assessment
written by Sgt. Kowalyk and the 2015 assessment written by Sgt. Bubis provide an
insight into the type of police officer Constable Pizzolato is. Sgt. Kowalyk identified
several performance issues relating to the four cornerstones which were echoed by his
District Commander.

In the same assessment he was complimentary of Constable Pizzolato’s care for the
community.

Sgt. Bubis spoke highly of Constable Pizzolato commenting on his positive attitude and
leadership.

A review of the Behavioral Events gives evidence that Constable Pizzolato is a good
reactive police officer.

The information contained in the “Negative” Behavioral Event where in April 2016
Constable Pizzolato failed to properly investigate a car prowling / vandalism complaint
in a parkade is troubling. It was shear neglect of duty. An aggravating factor to this is
that at the time, Constable Pizzolato was the subject of a complaint for failing to
investigate a sexual assault complaint involving an 11-year-old victim. This occurred in
June 2014 and resulted in a s. 19(1)(b) PSR agreement dated December 5th, 2016.
Constable Pizzolato was issued a Reprimand and was Suspended from Duty Without
Pay for a period of 80 hours.

I had previously mentioned that Constable Pizzolato is a good reactive police officer.
That involves calls where there is little to no investigation or follow up required. This
additional information gives me another perspective on Constable Pizzolato that is far
less complimentary and is indicative of a police officer who has shirked his duty to meet
the expectations of both the citizens he serves and the police service.

17
I also had the benefit of reading several personal reference letters provided by the cited
officer. These letters offer the opportunity to see another side of Constable Pizzolato.
Each of these letters were quite complimentary of Constable Pizzolato and highlight his
positive working relationship with his partners and some of his interactions with the
public.

(b) Long service of the officer

Constable Pizzolato has been a member of the Calgary Police Service for
approximately twenty-two years. He is a Senior Constable Level II. He is the recipient
of the Calgary Police Service 12-year Medal. He has not been awarded the Governor
General Police Exemplary Service Medal for 20 years’ service. He was ineligible due to
his prior discipline previously referred to.

(c) Whether or not the misconduct was an isolated incident in the employment
history of the officer.

Calgary Police records indicate that Constable Pizzolato has previous documented
incidents involving unsolicited contact with women he encountered in the line of duty.
Two of those events were dealt with by Constable Pizzolato's superior officers. On May
31, 2016, Constable Pizzolato was counselled by his Staff Sergeant about contact
taking place with a female he had encountered in the line of duty on June 3, 2015. He
was advised not to contact any woman socially who he had investigated or had any
official police involvement with. This was two weeks before his misconduct involving Ms.
M.

This information was documented in the Agreed Statement of Facts which has been
entered as Exhibit #4 and as such is part of the evidence that forms the record in this
matter.

Prior incidents where verbal or written warnings have been given cannot be considered
discipline under the Police Act or the PSR and would not be considered as prior
discipline. The warnings and counselling cannot and will not be considered for
progressive discipline.

I do conclude that these prior incidents could properly be accounted for as establishing
a pattern of behaviour as contemplated in Amery.

In the matter of Constable Tait v Blood Tribe Police Service, as the Presiding Officer on
the matter I wrote a decision that spoke to previous incidents, which were dealt with
through verbal or written warnings. I concluded that these incidents established a
pattern involving “repeated occurrences of identical behaviour as well as occurrences
similar in nature.” I found this to be a significantly aggravating factor.

18
On appeal, the LERB in its decision 8 upheld the use of prior incidents of verbal and
written warnings in determining a pattern of behavior.

Constable Pizzolato’s actions relating to Ms. M. were not an isolated incident. It was
part of a pattern of behaviour of attempting to establish relationships with women he
met in the line of duty that escalated to the point where Constable Pizzolato used his
position of authority to engage a vulnerable young woman.

(d) The existence or absence of provocation.

There is no evidence of the existence of provocation.

(e) Whether or not the misconduct was premeditated or was done on the spur of
the moment being aberrational in nature.

There is no information to indicate that Constable Pizzolato’s misconduct was

premediated. In fact, the origins of this matter were the result of a dispatched call.
However, when Constable Pizzolato initiated his inappropriate text messages with Ms.
M, he was taking advantage of the situation as it was presented to him. The fact of
Constable Pizzolato using his personal cell to text Ms. M, tells me it was a contemplated
act and done so for personal, not professional reasons. The misconduct also continued
over a period of several days. This was not done in the “spur of the moment.”

(f) Whether the imposition of a particular penalty will create a special economic
hardship for an officer in light of his/her particular circumstances.

The cited officer has provided information and documentation outlining his personal
finances. He has taken a second job to help his financial situation. He states having
been assigned to an administrative position during the investigation of this matter has
resulted in additional negative financial consequences.

Special economic hardship is an important factor to consider. A policing organization

does not wish to impose such a significant financial penalty that would result in
devastating it’s member. The consequences could result in a police officer so absorbed
in their personal plight; they lose all effectiveness as a police officer.

However, in the case where a penalty of dismissal is imposed, financial hardship is not
a factor to be considered. It is a given that a police officer who loses their employment
could face significant financial consequences but that does not override the factors
considered if dismissal is imposed.

(g) Evidence that the rules or internal policies of the police service (written or
unwritten) have not been uniformly enforced or applied, thus constituting a form
of discrimination.

8
Tait v Chief of Police, Blood Tribe Police Service, 2013 CanLII 69158 (AB LERB)

19
There factor is not applicable.

(h) Evidence indicating that a police officer misunderstood the nature or intent of
a given order or directive and as a result disobeyed it.

There is no evidence that Constable Pizzolato misunderstood the nature or intent of any
order or directive. In fact, Constable Pizzolato was given clear direction that he was not
to contact any women socially, he met in the line of duty. This being only two weeks
prior to his social contact with Ms. M. He knowingly and willfully disobeyed the direction
provided to him by a Staff Sergeant.

(i) The seriousness of the misconduct. In circumstances involving a member of

the public the impact or consequence to that person, or persons.

The are several factors to be discussed relating to the seriousness of this misconduct.

In speaking first to count #2, being the failure to abide by the “Conduct of Discipline
Policy Section,” this policy is in place to advise and protect members from the type
behavior exhibited by Constable Pizzolato. The fact that Constable Pizzolato was
counselled by his Staff Sergeant only two weeks prior to his involvement with Ms. M,
and then chose to ignore the Conduct of Discipline Policy is extremely serious.

Constable Pizzolato in effect stated it doesn’t matter that this policy exists; it obviously
doesn’t apply to me. Constable Pizzolato used the personal information he obtained
through his duties to contact Ms. M. clearly for personal, not professional reasons.

Regarding count #1, Constable Pizzolato while on duty responded to a call for service.
The call was that a female had consumed an excess of Tylenol to commit suicide. He
attended the call and in doing so he was a police officer assigned to investigate an
event. He was a “person in authority.”

He initiated a text conversation with Ms. M. using his personal cell phone. He did so at
10:59 PM on June 18, 2016, the day she was taken to the hospital. He did so under the
pretense of saying he had “those contacts if you would like.” She did not respond until
the following morning. The fact that Constable Pizzolato used his personal cell phone
instead of his CPS assigned cell phone is a strong indication that his contact with Ms.
M. was going to be personal in nature; not professional. This is later borne out by the
fact that the text messages became very personal and he did not at any time provide
the “contacts” that he promised he would provide.

He states he took a professional interest in the wellbeing of Ms. M. I find this not to be
the case. Ms. M. was in the hospital receiving the appropriate care. She was being
transferred to the Peter Lougheed Centre for further treatment. From the outset of his
text messages instead of just providing the contact information, he stated he wanted to
meet with her. There was no professional reason for an in-person meeting. And while
this is a minor point, professional communications between a police officer and a person

20
who is being provided information, do not include “smiley face or sad face” emojis as
was the case in his first two text messages.

Within minutes of Ms. M. responding to his initial text, Constable Pizzolato texts: “Can I
schedule a meet sometime if you are good with that?” followed shortly by a text stating
“Ok. I would really love to see you again.. I feel your pain! I really do!” This was not a
case of Ms. M. initiating any communication or wanting to meet with Constable
Pizzolato. This was clearly initiated by him. Constable Pizzolato then continued the text
messaging calling her “hon” and attempting to create a personal bond with his
messages.

Constable Pizzolato stated he knew Ms. M. was sad, that she was lonely and had no
family or friends to turn to for support. It was upon this he stated the connection was
built. He did not speak to the fact the call to attend Ms. M.’s residence was from a friend
who she had called and told she had taken a Tylenol overdose and that she no longer
wanted to live.

Constable Pizzolato was setting the stage for a personal encounter using his position as
a police officer to exude influence over a twenty-two-year girl who had just attempted
suicide. This girl was in an extremely vulnerable state. Constable Pizzolato states he
was unaware of her background of abuse and sexual exploitation. This is likely the
case, but it also makes the matter more aggravating. She had attempted suicide and he
would not have known why. He embarked on his quest to establish a personal
relationship with Ms. M. without knowing why she attempted suicide. He did so knowing
she was in a vulnerable state and would likely be receptive to his advances, especially
from someone in an authority position. I can see no other reason for his actions. It
certainly wasn’t a professional reason.

He was taking advantage of the situation presented to him. He was using his position as
a police officer to advance his personal motives. He believed Ms. M. would trust him.

The text messaging continued June 19 and 20. Constable Pizzolato addressed Ms. M.
as “sweety” and “sweetness.” On the morning of June 21, 2016, he again initiated the
text messaging.

It was shortly after that, Ms. M. texted “Btw, my mentor from the Boys and Girls club
saw my texts with you and thought I should make it clear that I’m only interested in the
resources. I hope that you weren’t interpreting this differently.” He responded and then
did not text further that day but commenced again the following day where he continued
to attempt to meet with Ms. M.

At 8:47 PM that evening he sent another text. It is clear from the messaging that a
telephone conversation took place where a meet was arranged, and this is the point
where Constable Pizzolato took Ms. M. to McDonald’s for ice cream.

21
While Ms. M. was in the hospital, the messages between Constable Pizzolato and Ms.
M. were seen by a hospital security officer who felt they were inappropriate. This person
contacted a Psychiatric Nurse who also believed the messaging was inappropriate. As a
result, the nurse reported the matter to the police service. Other persons were involved
which resulted in the crafting of the text message to Constable Pizzolato advising Ms.
M. was only interested in the resources he stated he would provide.

This is indicative of how serious this misconduct was seen by those persons charged
with the care of Ms. M. at the hospital. Ms. Baker, one of Ms. M’s. mentors after being
contacted by Ms. M. upon her release from the hospital was so concerned, she
contacted the police service to request a “check on the welfare” for Ms. M.

The actions of Constable Pizzolato clearly brought the reputation of the police service
into disrepute in the eyes of the staff of the Peter Lougheed Centre, and the mentors
from the Boys and Girls Club.

When Constable Pizzolato picked up Ms. M. at her apartment building and took her for
ice cream, they did not go inside the restaurant; they stayed in his car and parked away
from the store. During their conversation, he touched her on her arm and placed his
hand on her leg. Constable Pizzolato states this is the way he talked to people because
he is compassionate. I agree with Ms. Campbell when she stated: “The totality of the
circumstances shows that the touching of the arm and leg becomes something totally
different.”

I believe Constable Pizzolato’s intentions in touching Ms. M. were less a means of

communicating with compassion than they were to determine how far he could go with
his physical contact. Ms. M. stated she was uncomfortable and moved away closer to
the door. Constable Pizzolato likely sensed this and stopped his advances.

The effect of Constable Pizzolato’s behaviour on Ms. M. is clearly articulated in her

statement which is provided in its entirety in an earlier portion of this decision.

She clearly states she was scared. It is apparent she was confused by the fact that
Constable Pizzolato was a police officer and he was behaving in this manner. She
stated: “I was confused because sometimes he acted like a police officer and
sometimes, he acted like he wanted to date me.”

Her statement indicates she told her case worker that Constable Pizzolato was coming
to her apartment to meet her. She stated: “I told Ms. Kathy [Kathy Baker, who is her
case worker] I was scared and didn't feel safe and didn't know what to do.”

This resulted in Ms. Baker contacting the police requesting a “check on the welfare” call.
The police were present at Ms. M’s. building when Constable Pizzolato dropped her off.

The statement of Ms. M. is powerful. It is a declaration of what the impact of Constable

Pizzolato’s behavior was on her and how serious the misconduct of Constable Pizzolato

22
was. A person with the background of sexual abuse and exploitation such as Ms. M.
was being victimized by a police officer; a person who she should have been able to
trust to have her best interests in mind, not his own.

This type of behaviour by a police officer towards a young, vulnerable girl is

reprehensible. Constable Pizzolato was relentless in his pursuit of some form of
relationship with Ms. M. It is exacerbated by the fact this was a young woman he met
though his duties as a police officer, who he knew had mental health issues relating to
suicidal ideations.

Ms. Campbell referred to Constable Pizzolato’s behaviour as “predatory.” This is a very

strong term, however from my interpretation of the evidence, the term is appropriate.

(j) Officer cooperation, frankness, and overall attitude.

All indications are that Constable Pizzolato was co-operative throughout the
investigation. He has accepted responsibility for his behaviour. He entered “Admit”
pleas at the earliest opportunity and in doing so saved a young, vulnerable person from
having to appear before the hearing to testify. Constable Pizzolato also addressed the
Hearing apologizing for his behavior. This is all to the credit of Constable Pizzolato.

(k) Circumstances of mental or emotional stress or a context of substance

addiction or drug dependence. In considering such circumstances the likelihood
of future misconduct arising from the same cause or causes is an important
factor.

The cited officer has offered two Psychology Reports authored by Dr. Jon Amundson
Ph.D., relating to treatment of Constable Pizzolato.

In his report dated June 20, 2019, Dr. Amundson addressing the focus of the consult
states: “In fact, renewed contact has been related initially to the distress Constable
Pizzolato has suffered and ongoing, his commitment to more reflective professional
status.”

Under the title “Treatment Proper,” Dr. Amundson wrote: “Treatment has involved self-
regulation/mood management and cognitive restructuring i.e. adjustment in
thoughts/feelings related to both intrapersonal and interpersonal perspective. Aside
from session application/practice of skills, between session effort was undertaken,
especially regarding state of mind and interpersonal circumstance.”

Referring to the goals of treatment and outcomes to date, Dr. Amundson writes:

- To be more capable of reflective restraint and considered action

- To have developed capacity/competency to better manage inter-personal
challenges arising; and,

23
 - To express pride/confidence in being able to think outside/beyond
previous constraints or reflective thinking.

Dr. Amundson states that the prognosis with this file is extremely good “as this
gentleman has not only persisted but demonstrated good uptake and expression of
treatment goals.”

In the second report, Dr. Amundson provides some professional background and
continues by stating that Constable Pizzolato has been diligent, deliberate and reflective
regarding the matter at hand.

He adds: “Regarding professional competency, it is certainly my provisional and

therapeutic opinion Constable Pizzolato presents no risk to the public, in his L.E.O. role
at this time.”

Dr. Amundson Ph.D. is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist who Constable Pizzolato
started seeing in November 2018 in relation to this matter, in the words of his Counsel,
“to assist in correcting the behaviour which has led to the charges here today.”

I do note that Constable Pizzolato sought treatment from Dr. Amundson over two years
after the date the misconduct occurred. This was done at the conclusion of the
investigation into the misconduct, but prior to charges being proceeded with.

Mr. Dunn states what he did work on was impulse control, appropriate verbal and
physical boundaries and by way of a general example, intrapersonal space issues.

In his own words, Mr. Dunn described the reports of Dr. Amundson as “cryptic.”

I have read through the two reports numerous times. The reports do not provide or
describe any type of actual diagnosis. Dr. Amundson speaks of “Treatment has involved
self-regulation/mood management and cognitive restructuring i.e. adjustment in
thoughts/feelings related to both intrapersonal and interpersonal perspective.” He does
not provide information on what Constable Pizzolato was being treated for.

When speaking of the “Outcome/Prognosis” the points he makes outlines the goals of
Constable Pizzolato’s treatment and his belief that the prognosis is good. It does not
provide any substantive information on a foundation or baseline for his opinion or his
progress up to that point in time.

In his second report he states “I would again suggest that Constable Pizzolato has been
diligent, deliberate, and reflective regarding the matter at hand. As per the
correspondence of June 20th, 2019, capacity for appreciation of role, relationship, and
boundaries responsibility is significant. Reflective of success undertaken in mental
health treatment.”

24
The reports provided by Dr. Amundson are unclear. They do not provide information of
a diagnosis for Constable Pizzolato or adequately state what he was being treated for.
It did outline the treatment goals but even these were as Mr. Dunn stated, “cryptic.” He
states that the prognosis for Constable Pizzolato is “remarkably good,” but without
clearly stating what the treatment was for, the statement carries little weight.

Count One of the charges is as a result of a Constable Pizzolato using his position as a
police officer to establish a personal relationship with a person he met through the
course of his duties. A significant aggravating factor to this is that this person was a
twenty-two- year girl, who had attempted suicide and was extremely vulnerable. She
was hospitalized at the time Constable Pizzolato commenced his text messaging.

The behaviour shown by Constable Pizzolato exhibited character traits that

demonstrated poor judgement, a lack of moral character and integrity, poor decision
making and a lack of maturity.

While such character traits can be indicative of a mental disorder as defined under the
DSM5, there is no reference to this in Dr. Amundson’s report. There is nothing in the
reports of Dr. Amundson that addressed any of these traits.

The reports from Dr. Amundson do not address how Constable Pizzolato’s “condition”
attributed to the behavior that resulted in his misconduct. In fact, it doesn’t address or
describe the behaviour’s or reference Constable Pizzolato’s actions. It does not clearly
diagnose the “condition” or how the proposed treatment goals for the “condition” would
address the issues that could arise in the future.

When Dr. Amundson presented his provisional and therapeutic opinion that Constable
Pizzolato did not present a risk to the public in his role as a police officer, how did he
make this determination? He does not state what the risk was at the outset or from
what, or how Constable Pizzolato’s behaviour was attributed to his “condition.”

For the opinion of a medical professional to be used as a mitigating factor in assessing

a penalty for disciplinary misconduct certain criteria should be met.

First there should be a diagnosis of some sort. This could be a definitive diagnosis of a
mental disorder or addiction under the DSM5, or it could be a description of a behavioral
issue with personality traits that are outside of the norm; there must be something. For
the purpose of this decision, I will use the term “disorder.”

Second, there must be a nexus between the disorder and the misconduct. How did the
disorder contribute to the behaviour that resulted in the misconduct? In the case of
Constable Pizzolato, how did the disorder contribute to or cause him to interact with Ms.
M. in the manner that he did.

Next, the medical information must address what treatment the cited officer received or
continues to receive for the disorder that was diagnosed. This must be followed with a

25
prognosis that includes future treatment if necessary, and an opinion on the likelihood of
the behaviour being repeated.

The reports of Dr. Amundson do outline treatment goals for Constable Pizzolato along
with a positive prognosis. They do not provide a diagnosis of any type of disorder, nor
do they provide a nexus of how a disorder or behavioral issue contributed to the
misconduct. Without this, the treatment goals and prognosis carry little to no weight.

I have thoroughly reviewed Dr. Amundson’s reports to see how any mitigation can be
given to the behavior that resulted in Constable Pizzolato’s disciplinary misconducts. It
is not my intention nor should it be that of the disciplinary process to undeservedly
punish a police officer for doing something that was influenced by an identified disorder.

It is my finding that the reports produced by Dr. Amundson are not sufficiently reliable.

Throughout this review I have not found sufficient evidence to support that Constable
Pizzolato was not highly aware of what he was doing. I have not found sufficient
evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that a disorder played a part or
contributed to the misconduct. Ultimately, I am unable to make a finding that any type of
disorder Constable Pizzolato’s played a part in or in any way mitigates his actions.

(l) Other mitigating or aggravating factors unique to the personal circumstances

of the officer or the misconduct involved.

Constable Pizzolato has been a police officer in excess of twenty-two years primarily
working in a patrol response role. He has dealt with thousands of people in all types of
circumstances. Aside from the obvious vulnerability that Ms. M. would have exhibited,
having attempted suicide, Constable Pizzolato’s experience would easily tell him there
would be emotional underpinnings to Ms. M.’s suicide attempt. This would be an
aggravating factor to her vulnerability which he attempted to capitalize on.
It has been submitted that anyone dealing with Ms. M. would recognize that she
functions at a diminished capacity. Constable Pizzolato states he did not recognize that.
For a police officer of his experience not to recognize what has been described as
obvious is questionable but on this point, I must take him at his word. He either did not
recognize or chose not to recognize it.
Discussion on Penalty
The Police Service is seeking the dismissal of Constable Pizzolato. The defence is
stating that dismissal is unwarranted.
The Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB) in Amery v. Young 9, at page 7 stated:

9
ALERB Amery and Young, #007-93

26
 “In regard to police discipline it must also be mentioned at the outset that a police
officer, unlike an employee in the private sector, occupies a special status as a
public office holder.
Both the Police Service and the Cited Officer have provided several matters they refer
to as “like cases.” Additionally, they provided matters as authorities relating to the
dismissal of police officers.

The Presenting Officer referred to the following like matters which are listed in Exhibit 5,
pages 15-16:

Constable G. Gabriel, in the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner

Constable Armstrong and the Peel Regional Police Services
Constable D Emmett of the Calgary Police Service

Mr. Dunn provided a number of cases in his “Book of Exhibits and Written Authorities:

Armstrong v. Peel Regional Police

Constable D. Emmett of the Calgary Police Service, Penalty Decision
Constable Geoff Gabriel of Vancouver Police Service, Penalty Decision
Brayshaw v Ontario Police Service

Addressing the cases provided, I will first speak to the matters referred to by both
parties.

In “Armstrong,” 10 Constable Armstrong maintained an inappropriate relationship with a

young person who when she was 18 years old reported the matter to Peel Regional
Internal Affairs. She alleged sexual assaults and harassment by Constable Armstrong at
her family home dating back to when she was 16. The allegations included Constable
Armstrong grabbing her breasts, forced oral sex and intercourse. The complainant
approached a school guidance counselor who, knowing him to be a police officer,
telephoned Constable Armstrong and told him to discontinue his contact with the
complainant. Constable Armstrong admitted to hugging and kissing the complainant: he
denied the allegations of grabbing the breasts, forced oral sex or intercourse. A Senior
Crown Attorney concluded criminal charges would not be brought, and the matter
proceeded to a disciplinary hearing.

The Hearing resulted in Constable Armstrong being dismissed by the Peel Regional
Police. This dismissal was upheld by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and later
upheld by Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court. In their decision the OCPC
stated at para 46:

“Further, while it may not be unlawful for a 16-year old girl to enter into a
personal relationship with a 34-year old man, every woman is entitled to be free
from unwanted, persistent and aggressive attention of a sexual nature. The latter

10
OCPC-02-006 Constable Claude Armstrong and Peel Regional Police

27
 is clearly the nature of the allegation against Constable Armstrong. There is little
question to us that such conduct on the part of an officer either on or off duty
could be considered “reprehensible”, “inappropriate” and “bring discredit upon the
reputation” of a police service.”

There are some similarities in the Armstrong matter to the matter before me however
there are also marked differences. In Armstrong the “sexual assaults” were significantly
aggravating. This is absent in this matter. Additionally, in Armstrong there was an
extensive disciplinary history. While Constable Pizzolato does have prior discipline on
his record, it does not rise to the level of Constable Armstrong’s.

I do note that in both Armstrong and Pizzolato, there is a significant age difference
between the officers and the females. As well in both instances, a third party warned the
officers about their conduct. In Armstrong this was direct, in Pizzolato Ms. M.’s mentor
helped her formulate a text message advising they saw the text messages and that she
should make it clear she was only interested in the resources.

The OCPC decision, affirmed by the Divisional Court, discussed the Hearing Officer’s
decision where he address the positive aspects in Constable Armstrong’s employment
history being overshadowed by his extensive disciplinary record. The positives were
outweighed by the negatives, but the negatives were mitigated to a degree. The
decision to dismiss Constable Armstrong appears to have been primarily decided on the
facts of the matter. At para 64, the OCPC stated:

“To our minds, all of these conclusions are reasonable. Clearly, it is unacceptable
for a 34-year-old man to direct unwanted attention of a sexual nature to a 16-year
old girl. This is particularly so in the face of a clear and blunt warning from a
teacher that such conduct must stop. This is made all the worse when the
attention comes from a man who was a known police officer who appears to
have established trust by offering to provide police paraphernalia. In this respect,
it makes no difference that the conduct in question was off-duty.”

I find the misconduct of Constable Armstrong to be far more egregious than that of
Constable Pizzolato and as such, not a matter I can consider to any significant degree
other than to range of penalties.

The next matter to discuss is Gabriel. 11 In this matter the complainant described that in
2012/2013 she was accepted into the Vancouver Police Department recruitment
process which required her to take a polygraph test conducted by Constable Geoff
Gabriel. After the test Constable Gabriel provided her with his personal cell number and
advised he could help her out with the process. The complainant reported that she met
with Constable Gabriel a couple of times but was not interested in him in the way he
wanted her to be. Constable Gabriel became upset at this and showed signs of anger
that led to angry and explicit texts to her. The complainant described that she retained
the explicit pornographic pictures and sexually explicit messages sent to her by
11
Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, in the Matter of Constable Geoff Gabriel Date 20170403.

28
Constable Gabriel. The complainant also advised that Constable Gabriel supplied her
with a confidential DVD of his interrogation with a sex offender.

On the first count of Discreditable Conduct, Constable Gabriel was assessed a penalty
of an 18-day suspension.

The cited officer describes the facts in this case as more aggravating. The complainant
was trying to get a job, and the police officer was her interviewer. There was a power
imbalance.

While Mr. Dunn states there was a power imbalance in Gabriel that differentiates it from
Pizzolato, with Pizzolato he was in a position of authority and trust relating to Ms. M.
who was a vulnerable and easily influenced individual.

In the OPCC Decision at para’s 13 and 14, the Adjudicator wrote:

“I pause here to note that I view these offenses as egregious. The first offence
borders on dismissal. I say that because the officer was in a position of trust.
There was clearly a power imbalance and he clearly led the complainant to
believe that had she cooperated with him in his illicit proposals, she could have
been a member of the Vancouver Police Department in the area that she sought.
That is extremely serious, and in my view that borders on dismissal.

Mr. Woodall, counsel for Constable Gabriel, filed a written argument even though
he didn’t appear. In his argument, he was clearly aware of the position that was
being taken by the Commission Counsel. In the circumstances, it would be
inappropriate for me to impose any disciplinary measures that would exceed
those that the Commission has suggested. Thus, it would be inappropriate to
entertain the option of dismissal here.”

If not for the joint submission, it is likely the Arbitrator would have dismissed Constable
Gabriel. I find the Gabriel matter has several similarities to the matter at hand and
therefore instructive.

Both parties offered Emmett as a like case. In Emmett, I find the facts quite
distinguishable from the matter at hand. The complainant and Constable Emmett
mutually sent explicit photographs, videos and sexually charged communications to
each other over CPS social media accounts. The complainant was later identified as a
person of diminished capacity known to the CPS Digital Media Unit as a person on their
“watch list.” When Constable Emmett ended the relationship, the complainant made her
complaint to the Police Service. The penalty of two 80-hour suspensions from duty
without pay was as a result of a joint submission on penalty.

The cited officer offered several additional like cases. In Brayshaw 12 O.P.P Detective
Sergeant Brayshaw was a Detachment Commander charged with Discreditable
12
Detective Sergeant Richard A. Brayshaw and the Ontario Provincial Police, 1992 CanLII 12273

29
Conduct relating to sexual harassment of several civilian members of the detachment.
He was in a position of authority over the civilian employees. The cited officer was
demoted from Detective Sergeant to First Class Constable for a period of one year.

Mr. Dunn states the matter went to appeal and the sentence was upheld. He states the
facts in Brayshaw were more aggravating involving a situation of protracted sexual
harassment of employees. Brayshaw also had a full hearing versus acknowledging
some shortcomings and entering a guilty plea.

In comparing Brayshaw to Pizzolato, while there are some similarities in that both police
officers were in a position of authority over the complainants, I find the matters more
distinguishable on facts than not. In Brayshaw, the complainants were not of a
diminished capacity or as vulnerable as Ms. M. In Brayshaw it was a matter of
workplace harassment. In Pizzolato it is a matter of an abuse of authority involving a
person met in the course of his duties.

Mr. Dunn stated in Brayshaw the penalty was upheld on appeal. In fact, it was the cited
officer who appealed the penalty and the appeal was dismissed. The review panel
stated: “In our opinion the penalty imposed was the lowest penalty that could be
acceptable under all of the circumstances.” “It is our conclusion that any lesser penalty
than the one imposed in this case would have been inappropriate.”

Mr. Dunn then spoke of a Blood Tribe Police Service matter, Constable Higdon. This
matter involved electronic communication between two officers who had a prior sexual
relationship, with “poor conduct” on behalf of the subject officer. A joint submission
resulted in a reduction of two levels of seniority within the rank for a period of one year.

I find little comparison between the Higdon matter and the facts of the Pizzolato matter.
Higdon was a workplace romance that ended its course with one of the parties not
being accepting of that fact. It became a workplace harassment matter through
electronic means.

Mr. Dunn states these are the cases that should be guiding the decision in this matter.

My personal knowledge, research and open source searches have resulted in several
matters I view as analogous to the matter before me.

In 2001, Constable D. Plimmer of the Calgary Police Service was dismissed from the
CPS after admitting to a charge of Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority. The
facts of the matter were: while on duty, Constable Plimmer drove alongside a motor
vehicle. Utilizing CPIC, Constable Plimmer obtained the phone number of the registered
owner in an attempt to identify the female driver. Constable Plimmer left a message
requesting the driver contact him. The driver contacted Constable Plimmer as requested
however, he was unable to discuss the reason for his initial call at that time. Constable
Plimmer requested her phone number so he could contact her. Constable Plimmer later
contacted the female driver, apologized, explaining that he does not usually do this.

30
Constable Plimmer further stated that he could not stop thinking about her and asked if
she had a boyfriend. Realizing the true nature of the call, she terminated the
conversation.”

Constable Plimmer had prior discipline on his service record consisting of six
misconducts arising out of five incidents, (including the current misconduct - Unlawful or
Unnecessary Exercise of Authority). The prior discipline included a requirement to
participate in on-going counselling and a fitness for duty report.

He also had Senior Officer Compliments and positive performance evaluations.

Constable Plimmer also had the mitigating factor of stress relating to two failed
marriages and a personal bankruptcy.

In the LERB decision 13 on the matter, the Board stated:

“One cannot say the appellant’s conduct was trivial in all of the circumstances
and the presiding officer made no error in considering that this conduct was
extremely serious. He fully considered what was set out in Amery: a course of
conduct so serious and a pattern of negative action so constant and damaging
that a police service could be justified in dismissing an officer”. He further
considered Lingl: a course of conduct so reprehensible that it was wholly
incompatible with the continuation of the employee relationship. The presiding
officer assessed the evidence and concluded that this was conduct deserving
such a sanction and there was ample evidence upon which he could base his
decision.”

The matter of Plimmer is analogous to the degree that Constable Plimmer used a police
resource to obtain the personal information of a motorist for a non-police purpose. He
then used that information to contact the driver with who he was enamored. Upon
realizing the purpose of Constable Plimmer’s telephone call, this person terminated the
conversation.

In my view, the facts of Pizzolato are far more egregious than those in Plimmer. In
Plimmer, the complainant was not a vulnerable individual. The distinguishing factor is
that Constable Plimmer’s disciplinary record was more extensive than Constable
Pizzolato’s. The penalty of dismissal was upheld by the LERB, and the Court of Appeal.

Another Calgary Police Service matter similar in nature involved Constable Jason
Campbell. Campbell was charged with Insubordination and Discreditable Conduct in
2015. The facts of the matter were, Constable Campbell queried a licence plate
obtaining the telephone number of the female driver. He called the driver to inquire
about her safety. He then used his cell phone to send text messages of a personal
nature to the female.

13
ALERB Decision No. 008-2002

31
Constable Campbell had a good service record with several positive behavioral events,
and no discipline on file.

As part of a plea arrangement the count of Discreditable Conduct was withdrawn. The
member entered an admit plea to the charge of Insubordination for accessing
information for personal use. A joint penalty recommendation of forfeiture of 36 hours
was submitted and assessed as the penalty.

This matter was very analogous to the Plimmer matter previously discussed. Constable
Campbell was fortunate that the Service withdrew the count of Discreditable Conduct
and submitted a joint recommendation on penalty. It does have some similarities to the
Pizzolato matter in that Constable Campbell was on duty, used a police resource to
obtain personal information, then used that information for personal reasons. It is
dissimilar in that the complainant was not a vulnerable person who had direct dealings
with Constable Campbell and there was no in-person contact.

Several matters from British Columbia have significant similarities to the matter
involving Constable Pizzolato.

A West Vancouver Police Officer was dismissed on several counts of discreditable

conduct for pursuing personal relationships with females he met in the course of his
duties. The police officer used departmental work cellphones and computers to send
sexually explicit communications, including a naked photo of himself, to the vulnerable
domestic violence unit clients, as well as other females he met in the course of his
duties. In their decision 14 the Commission stated:

“The Discipline Authority determined that collectively, the police officer’s

behaviour was the antithesis of what the police community and public would
expect from a police officer. The vulnerability of the females who were the
subject of the police officer’s attentions, particularly when considering our current
understanding of sexism, power and culture was significantly aggravating. The
police officer breached the trust of the public and police department to such a
degree that anything short of dismissal would be unworkable, would bring the
administration of police discipline into disrepute, would significantly harm the
reputation of the police department and policing in general, and would not serve
the public interest. The member was ultimately dismissed from policing.”

In June 2019, Delta Police Inspector Varun Naidu was dismissed from the Police
Service for engaging in inappropriate sexual communications with a woman interested
in employment as a police officer. 15

Naidu was found to have reached out to the woman via social media after she had
expressed interest in applying to work with Delta police. Their conversations started off

14
OPCC File 2017-13349
15
OPCC 2018-14566

32
about what it was like to work with the force before later turning sexual via text and then
moving offline.

The External Discipline Authority determined that Naidu had committed misconduct and
imposed a penalty of dismissal. He found that Naidu’s conduct was a “deliberate and
calculating effort to establish safeguards that would enable him to engage in a covert
and sexually explicit relationship with [the woman].” Naidu was “in a position of trust and
authority by virtue of being a male, a police officer, a senior officer and someone who
could have significant influence on [the woman’s] career aspirations.”

The Deputy Police Complaint Commissioner stated:

“The Discipline Authority in this matter has sent a clear message that conduct
which exploits a relationship of trust or where there is a power imbalance will
attract the most serious of consequences. In these cases the public must be
assured that senior ranking police officers will conduct themselves with integrity
in all matters.”

Another BC matter involved former RCMP Constable Brian Mathew Burkett. This officer
communicated with seven different females he met in the line of duty, in efforts to
establish a personal relationship. Several of these women were victims of domestic
abuse. As a result of complaints, a “code of conduct” and criminal investigation were
initiated. At the conclusion of the internal investigation and prior to the Code of Conduct
Hearing where dismissal was being sought, the officer resigned from the RCMP. In
September 2019, Burkett was charged criminally with seven counts of “Breach of Trust.”
The matter is still before the courts and is only offered as a demonstration as to the
seriousness of this type of misconduct.

Three matters from the United Kingdom are quite analogous to the matter before me.

In 2018, Cheshire Police Constable Jennifer Regan was dismissed for gross
misconduct after sending inappropriate messages to a suicidal teenager she had
previously helped talk down from a bridge. She later emailed and texted the young
woman, who had a ‘lengthy history’ of mental health issues, “in a manner that was
wholly inappropriate” and even invited her to spend the night at her flat. The officer was
dismissed from the county’s police force without notice after a disciplinary panel found
her to be guilty of gross misconduct. The panel concluded: “She pursued and sought to
establish an improper personal, emotional and/or intimate relationship with [the woman],
who was vulnerable to an abuse of trust or power.’ The panel ruled the messages ‘were
very personal’ and the officer’s ‘clear intention was to establish a personal and
emotional relationship.”

The text messages and emails of Constable Regan’s were very similar to those sent by
Constable Pizzolato. Messages such as: “I wanted to check in with you and show you
that I’m more than the job. Let me know how you’re getting on.” “I’d like to keep in touch
with you because I think you’re a great person and I reckon you could make me smile a

33
lot!” “I also think you’re pretty amazing by the way.” “You wanna chat when you get
home? Xx. Or if you’re feeling adventurous you could come see me?”

In July 2017, a twenty-year Lincolnshire Police officer, PC Julian Minton was dismissed
from the force for gross misconduct after sending sexualized text messages to two
women. The officer sent text messages to one woman including a “significant” number
which contained sexualized comments and innuendo. The officer had visited the woman
while investigating her complaint about anti-social behaviour but then began sending
her “inappropriate” text messages.

The officer also sent inappropriate texts to a second woman whom he had contact with
several years earlier when she made a complaint of domestic harassment.

The panel wrote:

“It is wholly unacceptable for a police officer to abuse their special and privileged
position in our community and to use it as a means of engaging in a personal
relationship with a member of the public. There is no doubt that the victims in this
case were vulnerable and were affected by the conduct of PC Minton.”

Another UK matter involving a police officer and a vulnerable female involved Constable
Scott Johnson of the Hammersmith and Fulham Police. The female who was twenty
years younger than Constable Johnson, had attempted suicide by overdose with
Johnson having attended the call. At the hospital, the two hugged, and following that
incident, the two began exchanging messages. The officer then commenced a sexual
relationship with the women.

Johnson was charged criminally with “misconduct in public office” and sentenced to two
years in prison. He was dismissed from the Police Force.

While some may question the appropriateness of including like cases from the United
Kingdom the principles of policing in both countries are quite similar. In fact, Canadian
Policing has its roots in the UK with both countries following Sir Robert Peel’s Principal
of Law Enforcement 1829. The disciplinary process in both countries are also similar.

Other matters similar in nature have resulted in the dismissal of police officers however
have also resulted in demotions, suspensions and the forfeiture of hours. These matters
stem from incidents throughout North America and the United Kingdom.

In this decision, I have discussed and referenced many more cases than normal. Apart
from the purpose of providing information on like cases and their respective penalties, I
have done so to give a clear picture of how this type of misconduct is manifesting itself
in policing and how it is being dealt with by various policing agencies.

In several of the matters discussed above the police officers had prior discipline. While
Constable Pizzolato does have prior discipline on his personnel file this prior discipline

34
was for “Neglect of Duty.” While all prior discipline should be considered as an
aggravating factor, the type of prior discipline must also be considered. If the discipline
is of a like nature, that can be a very aggravating factor. If the prior discipline is unlike
the matter at hand is can have a lesser aggravating effect.

One of the takeaways from the examination of these cases is that the type of
misconduct committed by Constable Pizzolato is viewed as extremely serious both in
Canada and beyond. Dismissal is not and should not be automatic, but it is often the
outcome. When a lesser sanction was imposed it was often the result of significant
mitigating factors or as has been noted in several matters above, a plea arrangement
with a joint submission on penalty which was accepted by the Hearing Authority.

The question of whether a police officer can be dismissed for a single instance of
misconduct (absent progressive discipline) should also be discussed.

The LERB decision on Valmestad, No. 006-94 was a single incident of serious
misconduct where the member was involved in a chase, disobeyed an order to
terminate, stopped the vehicle and discharged his firearm. The member pled guilty and
was dismissed from the Service. The Board applied the Lingl test to this matter and
upheld the dismissal.

The LERB Decision on Stewart, No. 025-94 was a result of the member pointing a
firearm at another member and a civilian. He was charged criminally but not convicted.
This was a single instance of misconduct and an officer with a good history and in
excess of 20 years service. At a hearing he was dismissed from the Police Service. In
the LERB decision it was stated:

“to permit the appellant to return to the Police Service would, in the Board's view,
create an unacceptable risk to the general public and to members of the Police
Service.”

In 2016, the case of Sergeant Anthony Braile v. Calgary Police Service was a matter
where the officer was dismissed for misconduct absent of any prior misconduct. The
dismissal was upheld by the LERB as well as the Alberta Court of Appeal.

These three cases were instances involving single instances of misconduct where it
was found that the seriousness of that misconduct met with test in Lingl.

In addition, the Furlong matter from the Edmonton Police Service was a single instance
of misconduct that resulted in the dismissal of the officer. The penalty was upheld at the
LERB and the Court of Appeal.

The case law relating to police disciplinary sanctions in Alberta has been evolving. For
many years Amery from the LERB, and Plimmer and Lingl from the Court of Appeal
have been the predominant authorities.

35
More recently, the Alberta Court of Appeal has provided additional guidance for
Presiding Officers.
In Furlong 16, the Alberta Court of Appeal at para 27 stated:

“The task before the Presiding Officer and the Board was to select a fit sanction
for the respondent, having regard to the misconduct for which he was being
sanctioned. The fitness of a sanction depends on numerous factors, and is
particularly sensitive to the factual underpinnings of the offences. The factors
mentioned in Amery v Young, Lingl v Calgary Police Service and other decisions
will be relevant in many cases. The appropriate sanction will depend on the
seriousness of the misconduct, the moral culpability of the constable, the
existence of remorse and recognition of responsibility, the consequences
for the public and the administration of law that resulted, the need for
deterrence, denunciation or rehabilitation, the overall fitness of the
constable for police service, the impact that the misconduct had on the
relationship between the constable and his police service, and any other
relevant factor.”
(Bolding and underline added for emphasis)

In the Lingl 17 matter referred to by the Court of Appeal, the Law Enforcement Review
Board stated at p. 354:

“In some instances misconduct is so serious, or the pattern of negative action so

constant and damaging, that a Police Service will be justified in dismissing an
officer. In the present Alberta Legislation there is no test or standard set out that
is of assistance for distinguishing those instances which merit dismissal from
those which should attract a lesser, albeit substantial penalty. The absence of a
test or articulated measure presents difficulties, and in many instances
disparities. The Board accordingly is of the view that a standard must be
provided for consideration.

To support disciplinary dismissal the offending conduct (whether on or off duty)

must be of such serious nature that it demonstrates that the officer’s action is so
reprehensible, considering all the circumstances, that it is wholly incompatible
with the continuation of the employee relationship. The test to be considered is
whether or not the officer’s misconduct, misconducts, or pattern or history of
misconduct, is of such a nature that he or she is no longer fit or suitable to hold
the public office of police officer and to perform the duties and responsibilities of
that position.

Is the misconduct of Constable Pizzolato’s of such a nature that he is no longer fit or

suitable to hold the public office of police officer and to perform the duties and
responsibilities of that position?

16
Edmonton (Police Service) v Furlong, 2013 ABCA 121
17
Lingl v Calgary Police Service (1993), 1PLR 345

36
In this decision where I addressed the principles stated in Amery v Young, I detailed at
length my assessment of Constable Pizzolato’s misconduct and I apply that assessment
to this test. Those include the findings of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

In his pursuit of a personal relationship with Ms. M., Constable Pizzolato showed a
disregard to the core values of the Police Service. Specifically, respect, compassion and
integrity which are traits and values core to being an effective, efficient and trustworthy
police officer.

When I use the word trustworthy, it goes beyond the theoretical aspect of the word and
must be applied in the practical sense. Would the public trust Constable Pizzolato to
perform the duties of a police officer knowing the misconduct that he has had proven
against him? Would they trust a Police Service who employs such a person? Would the
public have any faith in the Police Disciplinary process and trust any outcomes of
complaints they may lodge? Could the Police Service trust Constable Pizzolato not to
repeat this type of misconduct? These are reasonable questions and my response
would be that there would be a significant lack of trust.

As a values-based profession, police services around the world identify certain values
as being core to the way they function. It is who and what police officers are. They must
believe in these values, live and work by them every single day both on and off duty.

These values are what the CPS looks for in the recruitment of new police officers.

On the CPS recruitment website under “Requirements of a CPS Officer 18

” it states:

We expect a great deal from the people we select to serve the citizens of Calgary
as police officers. Our members must have exemplary moral character, a high
degree of personal integrity, display sound judgment, intelligent decision making,
maturity and common sense. We support a diverse, inclusive and respectful
workplace and expect our applicants to display these values.

The CPS has seven core values: Respect, Honesty, Compassion, Courage,
Fairness, Accountability and Integrity. The importance of having these traits
cannot be stressed enough – nor can they be taught. These are the foundations
of what makes a good CPS officer.

If this is what the Service looks for in potential recruits, it holds that it is what the Police
Service requires in those people who are currently police officers within their Service.

In the Wittmann Report on Use of Force in the CPS, 19 at page 55 it states:

18
https://join.calgarypolice.ca/
19
Use of Force in the Calgary Police Service. An Independent Review by the Honourable Neil Wittmann,
QC, Page 55

37
 Along with aligning with the CPS core values of respect, honesty, integrity,
fairness, compassion and courage, officers are expected to demonstrate the
following characteristics and traits: exemplary moral character, a high degree
of personal integrity, sound judgement, intelligent decision making,
maturity and common sense.
(Bolding and underline added for emphasis)

While Police Services are values-based organizations, for this to be more than just
words, it is up to the men and women who make up the organization to live and work by
these values every single day of their career. Values cannot be taught. As shown in the
CPS recruitment materials, when hiring a person as a police officer they look for those
who have demonstrated these values throughout their personal and professional lives
and it is expected and required that these values, characteristics and traits be lived by
throughout a police officer’s career.

In the matter before me, Constable Pizzolato failed to live up to the expectations of both
the police service and the public he is sworn to serve and protect.

He did not show respect to Ms. M. and his is actions lacked integrity. When I look at the
characteristics and traits required of a police officer as highlighted in the Wittmann
Report being: “exemplary moral character, a high degree of personal integrity, sound
judgement, intelligent decision making, maturity and common sense” he failed dismally
on all aspects. He has clearly demonstrated he does not possess these required
characteristics and traits.

On page 14 of the LERB decision in Lingl the board states:

“In circumstances where dismissal is sought, or under review, consideration must

be given to whether or not the officer's misconduct, misconducts or pattern or
history of misconduct, is of such a nature that he or she is no longer fit or suitable
to hold the public office of police officer and to perform the duties and
responsibilities of that position. As in any other discipline case the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances provided in Amery (ante) must also be considered."

The ultimate issue in this case is whether Constable Pizzolato should be allowed to
continue in the office of police officer. Dismissal is the most severe penalty provided for
in the Police Service Regulation. It should only be imposed after due consideration has
been given to the established objectives and principles applicable to police discipline.

The misconduct of Constable Pizzolato must be considered particularly egregious

inasmuch as it concerns a significant breach of trust between a police officer in a
position of authority and a vulnerable young member of the community. Constable
Pizzolato had a responsibility to Ms. M. He failed in this responsibility in pursuit of his
personal gratification.

38
This breach of trust also extends to the staff of the Peter Lougheed Hospital who were
charged with the care and treatment of Ms. M., along with Ms. M.’s mentors from the
Boys and Girls Club. These people are community partners of the Police Service and
the bond of trust that must exist between the Police and these partners suffered
significant harm as a result of Constable Pizzolato’s actions. The reputation of the
Police Service was clearly brought into disrepute.

In my analysis, I have found there was some mitigating evidence offered for
consideration. However, the facts and aggravating factors arising from the evidence far
outweighed anything presented in mitigation. This misconduct was carried out by an
experienced senior police officer in a wilful, contemplated manner.

The impact of these aggravating factors on penalty is significant. A senior member of

the police service who engages in such misconduct has clearly violated the public trust
as well as that of the police service. When an officer cannot be trusted to act with
integrity and respect, and instead preys on the vulnerability of others for personal
gratification, a severe penalty is required. Further, if this misconduct is not treated with
the utmost seriousness, the effectiveness of the Calgary Police Service would be
compromised by virtue of the public’s loss of trust in and respect for it. The conduct of
Constable Pizzolato has seriously undermined the public’s confidence and trust that
police officers will honour their sworn oath to protect the public therefore only a
substantial meaningful penalty will prevent or reduce the damage to the reputation of
the Service.

Having found the information provided in the reports of Dr. Amundson unreliable, I also
cannot rely on his prognosis and opinion regarding recidivism. Constable Pizzolato has
shown a pattern of behavior which continued after warnings and counselling by a
supervisor. He did not seek professional counselling for over two years after the
incident with Ms. M. therefore the motives of seeking such counselling can be
questioned. I am not convinced that Constable Pizzolato will not fall into his previous
course of behavior upon completion of this matter.

The cited officer suggests a significant suspension without pay or a significant reduction
in seniority on rank would be a suitable penalty. He states it goes to the issue of
whether this offence was predatory and exploitive which would be extremely
aggravating, or whether it was inappropriate and unprofessional where dismissal would
be excessive. The defence concedes it was inappropriate and unprofessional however I
do not agree. The facts of Constable Pizzolato’s actions that led to the misconduct and
resulting proven charges have shown me otherwise. It also shows me that he has
forsaken the values that make a person worthy of holding the public office of a police
officer. In my view the penalty suggested by the cited officer would not meet the
disciplinary goals nor would it be reflective of the public interest.

In society, police officers are held to a higher standard. Police Officers are
professionals; people who are honest and trustworthy and of the highest moral
standards. They are expected to be leaders in our community and to set an example.

39
Constable Pizzolato has broken this public trust and when one police officer breaks that
trust, it is left to all police officers and the Police Service to earn that trust back. This
disciplinary hearing is part of that process.

Given the preceding analysis, I can come to no other conclusion than that Constable
Pizzolato’s actions are of such a nature they clearly demonstrate that he is not suitable
to hold the office of police officer and to perform the related duties and responsibilities.

When the conduct of Constable Pizzolato is viewed in totality I conclude that his
usefulness as an employee of the Service has been annulled. By his actions, Constable
Pizzolato has willfully breached his oath of office, the core values of the Service and
disregarded Service rules and regulations. The grave nature of his disciplinary
misconduct is such that the employment relationship in this case has been irreversibly
compromised.

ORDER

Constable David Pizzolato, Regimental Number 3171, on counts number one and
number two, it is my decision that a global penalty be assessed, and that you be
dismissed from the Calgary Police Service pursuant to Section 17(1)(f) of the Police
Service Regulation.

Section 18(2) of the Police Service Regulation states:

Where a cited officer is to be dismissed or permitted to resign from the police service
under Section 17, that action shall be held in abeyance.

The cited officer shall be placed under suspension without pay until the period of appeal
to the Law Enforcement Review Board has lapsed or the appeal has been concluded.

The Hearing into these matters is now concluded.

Issued at the City of Calgary in the Province of Alberta, this 29th day of October 2019.

Original Signed
________________________
Superintendent Paul Manuel (Ret’d)
Presiding Officer

Presenting Officer: Ms. V. Campbell

Counsel for the Cited Officer: Mr. Gregory Dunn

40