Toronto Police Insp. Joyce Schertzer has launched an appeal of a police tribunal ruling that saw her temporarily demoted for her interference in a collision investigation involving her nephew.
In the document, which was obtained by CP24, Schertzer lists more than 60 grounds for the appeal, including allegations that the hearing officer, Retired OPP Supt. Lisa Taylor, “engaged in speculation,” ignored relevant testimony and evidence, and “made unreasonable findings” in her decision.
Schertzer was previously found guilty of two counts of professional misconduct for her involvement in the collision on May 1, 2022.
Last month, the hearing officer ruled that Schertzer would be demoted to a lower rank for a period of nine months as penalty for the misconduct.
But in the appeal, the veteran police officer said Taylor’s analysis of some of the evidence was “replete with errors.”
“The hearing officer erred in her treatment of public interest by including but not limited to making unreasonable findings, making findings without evidence, engaging in speculation, and engaging in hyperbole,” Schertzer’s lawyer, Joanne Mulcahy, wrote in the appeal.
A tribunal previously heard that Schertzer received a call from her daughter, who also works as a police officer, informing her that Schertzer’s nephew crashed his pickup truck into a city-owned utility pole on Lake Shore Boulevard.
The tribunal heard that Schertzer, who was working at 11 Division that day, arranged for an officer from her division to be dispatched to 14 Division, where the crash occurred. This decision, the tribunal heard, circumvented the usual priority system “to the benefit of family.” Schertzer also attended the scene in person.
Schertzer previously said she thought the collision was in 11 Division, which borders 14 Division.
Schertzer’s nephew was cleared to leave the collision scene about 10 minutes after talking to the officer from 11 Division, according to tribunal documents.
But in her appeal, Schertzer’s lawyer said the hearing officer ignored or failed to consider relevant testimony while also failing “to address the credibility” of other officers who testified.
Shertzer’s lawyer said the allegations that she “dispatched an officer” to the scene and that she “circumvented the priority system” were not proven.
She also alleged that the hearing officer incorrectly asserted that Schertzer’s actions damaged the reputation of the service, claiming that Taylor “engaged in hyperbole,” ignored “relevant considerations” and over-emphasized media articles.
Schertzer’s lawyer called the penalty “harsh and excessive.”
She noted that the hearing officer erred in finding that “a reasonable citizen” would find her client’s actions “significantly incompatible with the high expectations for a senior police officer,” alleging that the hearing officer used that justification to impose “a strong penalty.”
Shertzer’s lawyer said the hearing officer exaggerated the conduct while “disregarding the overwhelming positive character evidence and exemplary employment history of the Appellant.”
With files from CP24’s Bryann Aguilar
