R. v. Kramp, 2014 ONCJ 780

COURT FILE No.: Central East Region-Newmarket DATE: 2014·07·29 CITATION: R. v. Kramp , 2014 ONCJ 780 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — TARA KRAMP Before Justice Peter C. West Mr. Peter Scrutton....................................................................................................... for the Crown Mr. Sandip Khehra.................................................................................................... for the accused WEST J.: Introduction [ 1 ] On January 14, 2014, Tara Kramp pled guilty to charges of Breach of Trust and Careless Storage of a Firearm.

Sentencing was adjourned to June 25, 2014. The Breach of Trust charge occurred between April 17, 2012 and June 12, 2012. The Careless Storage of Firearms related to the execution of a search warrant at Ms. Kramp’s residence on June 12, 2012, when she was also arrested. [ 2 ] It is the Crown’s position that denunciation and deterrence are the paramount sentencing principles and Ms.

Kramp’s conduct respecting her providing confidential police information from CPIC and Durham Records Management System (DRMS) to third parties requires a real jail sentence of 12 months to be followed by a probationary term of one or two years, with conditions. Mr. Khehra, on behalf of Ms. Kramp, urges a suspended sentence and two years’ probation with conditions. It is his position Ms.

Kramp already spent three days in segregation when she was first arrested because of a Crown request for a three day remand and she spent approximately 10 months on strict house arrest prior to that term being amended to reflect a curfew, initially 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with a further variation of the curfew, one and half months later to 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. [ 3 ] Sentencing submissions were heard on June 25, 2014. An agreed statement of facts was filed as Exhibit 1. Mr. Khehra filed various sentencing materials, including character reference letters, rehabilitation letters, news media reports relating to Ms.

Kramp’s arrest and charges, Ms. Kramp’s professional records with Durham Regional Police Service and a record of disposition without a hearing. Both counsel provided extensive casebooks. I adjourned sentencing until July 29, 2014. Factual Background [ 4 ] Ms. Kramp began basic recruit training at Aylmer Police College in January 1998 and began uniform duty with Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) in April 1998. At the time of her arrest she had been employed with DRPS for just over 14 years.

In December 2011, DRPS received information from a confidential source that a Durham police officer was providing confidential information to members of the public. Investigation determined that officer was Tara Kramp, who was then working at the Regional Reporting Centre of Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS). [ 5 ] The police investigation expanded into a drug investigation involving mid-level drug dealers in the Oshawa area. Several drug dealers and Ms. Kramp became the subject of a

Part 6 wiretap. It is agreed by counsel that in addition to the Agreed Statement of Facts I can rely on the evidence I heard during the preliminary inquiry, which was held on May 27-30, 2013, October 9, 2013 and November 13, 2013. [ 6 ] The investigation disclosed Ms. Kramp conducted 7 “offline” Canadian Police Information Centre database (CPIC) not in the execution of her duties and dozens of similarly unauthorized queries on the Durham Records Management System (DRMS), an

internal regional police database. The queries were either conducted by Ms. Kramp or requested through other DRPS employees. It is my understanding that Ms. Kramp would contact the communications dispatcher on some of the occasions and provide her name and badge number before providing name and birth date of subject she wanted searched. She would also use her computer at work to access information, which also would identify her as being the author of the request.

On occasion she would call fellow officers and ask them to provide her information from the system. [ 7 ] I was advised by the Crown the confidential information obtained by Ms. Kramp never compromised or interfered with any ongoing investigation nor did it lead to the identity of a confidential human source. Although, it was Mr. Scrutton’s submission the risk of this occurring was a possibility. [ 8 ] The wiretap authorization revealed the following conversations between Ms. Kramp and individuals targeted as known drug dealers. Jeremy Russell was one of the individuals arrested on June 12, 2012.

He pled guilty to trafficking and other offences in May 2013. Ms. Kramp was not initially aware Mr. Russell was under investigation or surveillance by police but became aware during the course of their friendship. [ 9 ] On April 28, 2012, Mr. Russell contacted Ms. Kramp and told her his dad called him to say the police were “all over the house, in the fields behind the house” and he wondered if she could do what she did for him previously. Ms. Kramp told him she could not call in, she was not at work, and it would put too much risk on her. She told him she would have to look it up and go into work.

Russell said he understood. She told him she was working again on Wednesday. [ 10 ] On May 7, 2012, another conversation between Kramp and Russell was intercepted. Ms. Kramp asked what happened after he called last weekend and if he was alright. He said no, he knew something was going on and he said the Biker squad and all that. Kramp told him she did not go back to work until Thursday and asked if he wanted her to check into it. Russell said he would and she asked for his name and birthdate.

On the same date in another conversation Kramp called Russell back and said he was on a lot of conditions, he could not drive and no association with the “bitch” he was with before. They discussed his driving conditions. He told her he had heard stuff about the Biker squad and she asked why and if he was in that. Russell said no and then mumbled something. There was a discussion about safe phones and they arranged to talk later. Ms. Kramp did access CPIC about Russell on this date. [ 11 ] On May 25, 2012, a conversation between Kramp and Russell was intercepted. Ms.

Kramp called Russell to find out what happened to a mutual friend, Christopher Hudlin, who had been arrested. She advised Russell she had checked when she went into work and learned Hudlin had been arrested for a breach. She told Russell the breach had to do with Hudlin’s girlfriend. Russell asked Kramp to keep in touch and she told him she would find out more tomorrow and call him. [ 12 ] On May 26, 2012, Ms. Kramp called Russell and advised she was at work and had confirmed Hudlin’s breach was in respect of his girlfriend.

She advised Hudlin was observed on his girlfriend’s street, walking by her house and looking up at her window. Police were called and he had been in custody since May 19. This information was obtained by Ms. Kramp after she queried DRMS. Earlier that day, Ms. Kramp’s call to another friend was intercepted where she advised her friend she had been drinking alcohol and was drunk at work. [ 13 ] On June 1, 2012, a conversation between Kramp and Russell was intercepted. Russell advises Kramp he has just smoked a big joint. Ms. Kramp tells Russell he has a huge record.

She told him she could not talk to him anymore (while laughing about it) and said he was a biker associate. Ms. Kramp told Russell he’s associated with Harley Guindon (a Hells Angels associate known to DRPS). Russell confirmed he is a good friend of Guindon and they have known each other for 20 years. Kramp told Russell never to use her name around those guys as they know her as she worked undercover for 10 years. She told Russell she was good now and is very cool as she really hates her job.

Russell asked her if she had heard anything else about Hudlin and she advised him she checked two days before and Hudlin was still in custody. Russell then advised Kramp his cousin was arrested and he tried calling the cells. Ms. Kramp told him he should have called her and asked if he wanted her to check on his cousin. Russell said no. Ms. Kramp reminded him she could always find out. [ 14 ] On the same date a further call was intercepted between Russell and Kramp. Russell told Kramp his buddy was picked up yesterday and he was with the buddy’s mother who could not get any information about her son.

Kramp asked for the name, Russell told her Jeffrey Bray. Kramp advised she could not find out until tomorrow as people were coming in that night. Russell asked “for sure?” and she said “Yeah, oh fuck 100%.” Kramp says she would find out first thing in the morning or she might call tonight. Russell provided Bray’s birthdate. Bray had been arrested the day before for robbery by DRPS Guns and Gang Enforcement Unit. Ms. Kramp did not check Jeffrey Bray on CPIC. [ 15 ] On May 4, 2012, Ms.

Kramp had two conversations with a friend, Leslie Hutchinson, who is not known or alleged to be active in the local drug trade and was not a target of the drug investigation. Ms. Hutchinson was concerned about a dog trainer who had been charged with cruelty to animals as she had been a witness for the Crown at his trial. Hutchinson wanted Kramp to run him and Kramp said she would. Kramp called Hutchinson to advise he was on bail and required to live in Milton with his surety. Hutchinson wanted the dog trainer’s address and Kramp advised her she could not provide that to her.

Hutchinson asked if it would bother Kramp if she told someone else this information and Kramp told her not to say anything. [ 16 ] On May 31, 2012, members of DRPS Intelligence Unit executed search warrants at two businesses and three residences. The businesses were Maximum Sort Nutrition where Haig “Bobby” Garabet was arrested and charged with various drug related offences. Two out of three of the homes related to Nelson Dasilva. [ 17 ] On June 5, 2012, a conversation between Ms. Kramp and Nelson Dasilva was intercepted.

Dasilva asked Kramp if she heard about all the excitement and she advised she was at work and noticed on e-parade and thought “he’s fucked” and over $18,000 worth of stuff, like heroin. Dasilva expressed surprise about the heroin. Kramp told Dasilva that police did a search warrant on both stores, his residence and his car, referring to Garabet. Dasilva told her they searched his place and took $10,000. Dasilva told her his name was on the alarm paper at the store. They discussed whether he was charged and his lawyer would take care of things. Dasilva thinks someone “ratted” him out.

Kramp told him she felt bad and said there was nothing in the reports with his name. Dasilva asked if

he could get into a lot of trouble and Kramp said yes. Dasilva said they must have been watching him for a while and Ms. Kramp advised “yeah but all it says in the report, cause they won’t put it in there, is that information was received that this person was dealing in steroids. That’s how it started.” [ 18 ] On June 5, 2012, there were three other conversations in which Ms. Kramp indicated she was intoxicated while she was at work. [ 19 ] On June 12, 2012, a search warrant was executed at Ms. Kramp’s home and investigators located several long forearms, all which were lawfully registered to Tara Kramp.

Tone of the firearms was stored in a careless manner, in that, it was not locked in the gun locker and did not have a trigger lock attached. The trigger lock was on the floor next to the firearm. There was no ammunition in the vicinity. During the preliminary inquiry, photos taken by SOCO officers during the execution of the search warrant revealed Ms. Kramp’s residence was extremely messy and unkempt with numerous empty wine and other alcoholic bottles strewn around.

The Law [ 20 ] The case law is clear that the principles of sentencing which must prevail in the sentencing of a police officer who is convicted of breach of trust are general deterrence and denunciation. The relevant sections of the Criminal Code are as follows: 122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person. 718.

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community. 718.1. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

[21] The Crown provided a casebook setting out a number of cases involving sentencing principles relevant to police officers.Included were the decisions of R. v. Cook, 2010 ONSC 5016 , [2010] O.J. No. 4414 (Superior Court of Justice, Hill J.) and R. v.Rudge, [2014] O.J. No. 137 (Superior Court of Justice, Hambly J.). I was also provided a casebook by Mr. Khehra which set out casesinvolving police officers from across Canada. It is important to recognize no two cases are identical on their facts and sentencing istherefore very much linked to the peculiar and specific facts of the case.

I have considered all of the cases provided by counsel. [22] In Cook a Peel Regional police officer was convicted, after a trial, of attempting to possess a controlled substance for thepurpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana, theft of 21 Mp3 players (part of a police seizure) and breach of trust. There were noextenuating or exceptional circumstances. Mr. Cook was a 14 year veteran police officer with a good reputation, who provided extensivecharacter evidence. Justice Hill set out the in detail the principles that should guide a court in sentencing a police officer. Mr.

Cook wassentenced to a total of 5 years and 8 months imprisonment, which included a 4 year sentence for the breach of trust offence. Numerouspolice investigations in which P.C. Cook had been involved were stayed by the Crown as a result of his conduct. [23] In Rudge Justice Hambly reproduced a

summary of the principles distilled by Hill J. in Cook which had been compiled inR. v. Greenhalgh, [2011] B.C.J. No. 745; affirmed [2012] B.C.J. No. 1235 (B.C.C.A.), a case involving a Border Services Officer (BSO)charged with sexual assault (3 counts) and breach of trust. After being convicted by a jury the trial imposed a two years less a day jailsentence and three years’ probation. The trial judge in Greenhalgh summarized the principles identified by Justice Hill as follows: 1. Police officers, as officials discharging public duties, occupy a special position of trust in the community (para. 29). 2.

As in any line of work, the moral compass of an individual police officer may become untrue as he or she elects "to cross to theother side of the road and become a criminal". Police officers have opportunities, practically on a daily basis, to cross the line and engagein prohibited conduct. The public trusts them to resist the temptation and relies upon the courts to deal firmly with those who stray(paras. 31-32). 3.

When sentencing a police officer for a crime involving breach of the public trust the court may properly take into account thatthe accused would necessarily be well aware of the consequences of its perpetration (para. 35). 4. Not surprising is the reality that individuals who find themselves before a criminal court convicted of a breach of trust crimeare able to adduce abundant good character evidence - "[i]t is, of course, this very type of character profile which allows an individual toattain a position of trust" (para. 36). 5.

In any case involving conviction and sentence, the accused is stigmatized, more or less, by the process. While shame anddisgrace may be amplified in the instance of a public official, these consequences are not to be over-emphasized in determining a fitpunishment (para. 37). 6. Quite apart from the police corruption offence in s. 122 of the Criminal Code, breach of a position of trust is a deemedaggravating factor in sentencing: s. 718.2(a)(iii) of the Code (para. 38). 7. General deterrence and denunciation drive the sentencing process in abuse of trust prosecutions.

In the absence of anexceptional mitigating factor (e.g., addiction), severe sentences are justified for police officer offenders to honour these sentencingprinciples (para. 38). 8. While a police officer who breaches the public trust brings upon himself or herself the consequence of dismissal, that penaltyfalls to be considered within the totality of the circumstances worthy of review by a sentencing court. The jeopardy of loss ofemployment on the part of a police officer cannot trump the pressing need for denunciation and deterrence (para. 42). 9.

Police officer offenders will almost inevitably serve much or all of the sentence in protective custody. This reality, involving asit does more limited social contact and institutional amenities, ordinarily warrants consideration in mitigation of punishment (para. 43). [24] The factual background in Rudge involved Mr. Rudge, a police constable with Niagara Regional Police Service,providing four confidential police intelligence memorandum relating to active police investigations into the Hells Angels and OutlawMotorcycle Club.

Police had received information from confidential informants that members of the Hells Angels had in their possessionconfidential police intelligence bulletins. A monitor was put on the photocopier at the Port Colborne detachment, which identified Cst.Rudge as the officer responsible for photocopying the four bulletins. He was convicted after a judge alone trial. The bulletins containedthe identity of a confidential informant who had provided information concerning the Hells Angels to police.

Search warrants wereexecuted at properties owned by the Hells Angels and the four confidential police intelligence bulletins photocopied by Cst. Rudge werefound and seized. Apparently Cst Rudge had developed a relationship with the common law spouse of one of the Hell’s Angels membersand he had provided the bulletins to her, which were in turn supplied to the Hells Angels. Mr.

Rudge received a sentenced of four years.There was also evidence before Justice Hambly that police investigations had been jeopardized as well as a reluctance and refusal of anumber of confidential informants to continue supplying information to the police because of Mr. Rudge leaking these bulletins. [25] The Crown concedes the factual background of each of these cases and others in his casebook relates to conduct far moreserious and egregious than the conduct of Ms. Kramp. The nature of the breach of trust will be a significant factor in determining justhow severe the sentence should be.

This is not a case involving a police officer checking on one occasion an individual’s criminal recordon CPIC for a family member or checking an individual on CPIC who has become involved with an estranged spouse. I was advisedduring submissions these types of breaches would be dealt with most likely by way of Police Act charges as opposed to a criminalprosecution. Ms.

Kramp’s conduct, although nowhere near as serious as in Rudge, was nonetheless a serious breach of trust, whichcontinued over an extended period of time and was committed on behalf of at least three individuals. [26] Quite apart from the police corruption offence in s. 122 of the Criminal Code, breach of a position of trust is a deemedaggravating factor in sentencing: s. 718.2(a)(iii) of the Code. General deterrence and denunciation drive the sentencing process in abuse

of trust prosecutions. In the absence of an exceptional mitigating circumstance or factor (e.g., addiction, see R. v. Lensen, [1994] O.J. No.359 (C.A.), severe sentences are justified for police officers to reflect these sentencing principles. [27] During submissions Mr.

Scrutton accepted that the existence of exceptional circumstances, such as addiction or mentalhealth issues, will have an impact on the sentence to be imposed and on the public’s perception of the commission of the breach of trustoffence. [28] In the Lensen case, the Court of Appeal upheld a suspended sentence and probation imposed by Justice German in theSuperior Court of Ontario for an RCMP officer who was responsible for the drug vault where seized illegal substances were kept. Heconverted a large quantity of cocaine (1 kg) that had been deposited in the vault to feed his own addiction.

When his addiction and theftbecame known he was fired and from that time devoted his efforts to overcoming his addiction and assisting others similarly situated.The court held at paras. 2-4: 2 Considering that he was in a position of trust at the time of the offence, as the R.C.M.P. officer in charge of the vault where seizednarcotics were kept, normally a custodial sentence would have been required. The circumstances are unusual in many respects.

Theevidence indicates that the drugs which the respondent converted to his own use were not held as potential exhibits in on-goingproceedings, but had been marked for destruction and should have been disposed of.

The respondent's position of trust was also hisdownfall in that, after 25 years of service in the R.C.M.P., his assignment to the vault presented him with an incredible opportunity toindulge his addiction. 3 After his cocaine addiction became known, the respondent sought professional help and to this day has remained drug free.Moreover, after his leaving the force in disgrace, he has devoted his energies not only to conquering his own problems but to helpingothers similarly afflicted. The respondent continues to pursue his own addiction treatment at Bellwood Health Services, and he isprogressing well.

He has also obtained employment there, on a part-time basis, and he works as a volunteer both at Bellwood and at theRenascent Centre assisting others involved in addiction recovery. 4 In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that it would not be in the best interest of the respondent, nor of society, for us to orderthat the respondent be incarcerated. [29] There are numerous cases in the Ontario Court of Appeal involving breach of trust where the court has indicated asignificant jail sentence should follow; however, the court has also held where there are exceptional mitigating circumstances amandatory jail sentence does not always necessarily follow.

In some circumstances a conditional sentence pursuant to s. 742.1 of theCriminal Code can provide significant deterrence and denunciation and there is no necessity for the sentence to be one of real jail. Inother circumstances, a suspended sentence and probation may sufficiently address the principles of deterrence and denunciation,particularly where an offender is suffering from addiction and/or mental health issues and has already been subject to onerous bailconditions amounting to house arrest. [30] A case which is somewhat akin to the circumstances in Ms. Kramp’s case is R. v.

Kelly, 2004 ABPC 110 ,[2004] O.J. No. 811 (Ont. C.J., Cowan J.). In that case a Toronto police officer with the Drug Squad began using cocaine with a policeagent he was involved with as a handler, while they were betting on horse races. He was originally charged with trafficking in cocainebut pled guilty to two counts of simple possession of cocaine. The Crown proceeded by indictment. As a result of inside informationprovided by the agent, P.C. Kelly bet on a race and won. He reinvested in another horse race which, resulted in a $25,000 windfall forthe officer.

The officer demanded he be paid, there was a falling out between the agent and the officer and the agent reported P.C. Kellyto Internal Affairs. An investigation was commenced with police intercepting private communications between the agent and the officer,which led to the officer being charged. Evidence disclosed that P.C.

Kelly was suffering from considerable work related stress, hesought a transfer out of the Drug Squad, which was denied, he became addicted to cocaine as a result of his using cocaine with the agent,he suffered a significant loss in the sudden and unexpected death of his father, he also suffered a significant break-up in a long termrelationship and he was present when a fellow drug officer was shot by a drug dealer and later had a shotgun pointed at him during astreet-level takedown. Mr. Kelly had attended drug treatment and had undergone lengthy psychotherapy.

His prognosis was very goodwith little likelihood of him re-offending. Justice Cowan considered the exceptional circumstances and suspended the passing ofsentence and placed Mr. Kelly on probation with conditions. [31] Two factors referred to by Justice Hill in Cook should be addressed before discussing the aggravating and mitigatingcircumstances which exist in Ms. Kramp’s case. Although Ms. Kramp has not been dismissed from her employment as a police officer, Iwas advised there were approximately 70 Police Act charges, which are being held in abeyance until the criminal charges are fullydisposed of.

It is my view, having regard to the nature of Ms. Kramp’s breach of trust she will most likely be dismissed. Mr. Khehra issubmitting the appropriate sentence is a suspended sentence and probation, which is a conviction. In R. v. Feeney et. al. (2008), 2008ONCA 756 , 238 C.C.C.(3d) 49 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 8, the court approved the statement in R. v. Cusack, (NSCA), [1978] N.S.J. No. 538 (N.S.S.C. App.

Div.) at para. 13, that in the case of conviction for serious breach of trust in the course ofduty, the “act will result not only in dismissal from the position of trust but also in the imposition of substantial punishment.” As Iexpressed to Mr. Scrutton, while Ms. Kramp as a result of her breach of trust brought upon herself the consequence of dismissal, thatpenalty must be considered within the totality of the circumstances to be considered in the imposition of a fit and proper sentence. JusticeHill refers to R. v. Hunt, [1978] B.C.J. No. 92 (C.A.) at paras. 3 and 11. However, pursuant to R. v.

Preston, 2008 ONCA 530, at para. 3,the jeopardy of loss of employment on the part of a police officer cannot “trump the pressing need for denunciation and deterrence.” [32] A second factor is when a sentence of real jail is imposed a police officer will likely serve much or all of the sentence insegregation or protective custody. As Justice Hill held “this reality, involving as it does more limited social contact and institutionalamenities, ordinarily warrants consideration in mitigation of sentence.” In fact, Ms.

Kramp has already spent three days in custody afterher arrest, in segregation, as a result of the Crown requesting a three day remand Aggravating Circumstances [33]

Section 718.2 provides that a breach of trust shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstance.

[ 34 ] The Crown submits Ms. Kramp’s conduct in checking CPIC and the DRMS and subsequently providing confidential police information to Mr. Russell and others is an egregious breach of trust, which is a serious aggravating circumstance. There can be no doubt from the wiretap conversations that in some circumstances Ms. Kramp was providing sensitive confidential police information, particularly when she advised Mr. Dasilva the report she was looking at indicated “information was received”. This was after Mr. Dasilva told her he believed someone “ratted” him out. The Crown argues what Ms. Kramp advised Mr.

Dasilva would have implied there was a “rat” and could have led to a confidential informant being identified. As already indicated, no police investigations were compromised by the disclosure of the confidential information and no confidential informant was ever identified. [ 35 ] Mr. Scrutton argues at some point Ms. Kramp became aware the people she was providing information to were criminals and drug dealers; the very people police officers are under a duty to investigate. He submits it is an aggravating circumstance that Ms. Kramp is providing information to multiple people.

I was not provided a great deal of information as to what relationship or friendship Ms. Kramp had with Mr. Russell or why she would even want to check CPIC or DRMS for him. Further, I do not have any information as to Ms. Kramp’s relationship with Mr. Dasilva or why she would be prepared to provide him information from DRMS as to the execution of search warrants on his residence. Not that such information would necessarily lessen the seriousness of Ms. Kramp’s conduct; however, it would provide some context. Was she associating with these individuals because of her extensive drinking? How did she know Mr.

Russell and Mr. Dasilva? There is no evidence to suggest she receive any monetary remuneration for providing this information. [ 36 ] In a number of the instances set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts the information Ms. Kramp provided would have been contained in public court documents, which Mr. Russell could have accessed for himself. The same observation can be made respecting the information Ms. Kramp provided to her friend, Leslie Hutchinson. The information which is more problematic and serious relates to the information provided to Mr. Dasilva and the information provided to Mr.

Russell concerning the police “searching” his house and property and the fact Mr. Russell’s name is associated with Harvey Guindon (a Hells Angel associate known to DRPS). This information was clearly confidential and could have jeopardized two active investigations, it was fortuitous these investigations were not compromised. [ 37 ] The Crown submits it is an aggravating factor that Ms. Kramp expresses on the wiretaps she knew providing this information to Mr. Russell was wrong and she was probably jeopardizing her position as a police officer. I agree with this submission to the extent Ms.

Kramp cannot rely on her alcohol addiction as an excuse for her providing confidential information, which she is not attempting to do. However, I am of the view no police officer would be able to maintain they were unaware that providing information from CPIC or police databases was unlawful or could lead to disciplinary proceedings or termination or criminal charges for breach of trust. The very nature of the conduct is aggravating because it is a serious breach of trust and runs completely contrary to a police officer’s sworn duty. What is clear however from the wiretaps is Ms.

Kramp, in many instances, was under the influence of alcohol when she was providing this information. [ 38 ] The Crown further submits it is aggravating that after Mr. Russell told Ms. Kramp his cousin had been arrested she said Russell should have called her as she could find out what his status was but Mr. Russell told her not to bother. She ended the conversation by telling Russell she could always find out. On another occasion, she told Mr. Russell she would check on Russell’s buddy, Jeffrey Bray, yet even after getting Bray’s full name and birthdate never checked him out on CPIC or DRMS.

In my view, this may be an example of an occasion when Ms. Kramp was under the influence of alcohol such that she did not follow through with her agreeing to see what happened to Mr. Bray. Background of the Offender and Mitigating Circumstances [ 39 ] Ms. Kramp is 40 years of age. She attended Brock University and obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology in April 1996. I was advised in many of the character letters and by Ms. Kramp her lifelong goal was to become a police officer. In January 1998 she realized her goal when she entered basic training at Aylmer Police College. Exhibit 5 is a binder containing Ms.

Kramp’s professional records as a Durham police constable, including numerous commendations and her yearly evaluations. Up until 2010 the yearly evaluations and commendations for Tara Kramp were extremely positive reflecting her passion and dedication to becoming a competent and professional police officer. The following excerpts provide examples of these positive comments: “It is obvious that Constable Kramp is a talented individual. Many leaders of this organization have chosen her to assist with complex investigations. She has succeeded each and every time, proving her worth within this organization.

I without hesitation recommend Constable Kramp for the position of – Constable within the Offender Management Unit.” Exhibit 5, Tab 3 “P.C. Kramp is a highly motivated self starter. I have seen this demonstrated time and time again in her constant exemplary work performance, and work product.

She carries the well deserved reputation for being professional, and always one who ‘answers the bell’.” Exhibit 5, Tab 3 “…a highly motivated individual who strives for excellence, not only in her work life but also in her personal life.” Exhibit 5, Tab 3 “D/Cst Kramp completed her assigned duties with excellence….an experienced investigator and her work performance demonstrated that she is a valued member of MIRT, a professional and a productive team member of the SAVILLE Homicide Investigative Team….Tara’s policing experience was apparent, and she would be an asset to an investigative unit, i.e. a Divisional CIB unit.” Exhibit 5, Tab 3 “Tara is a very hard-working, self-motivated individual who will do well in investigative work.” Exhibit 5, Tab 4D “Tara is now into her 7 th year of policing.

Tara continually puts forth 100% effort into her work & can be counted on to complete any task both thoroughly & professionally.” Exhibit 5, Tab 4E “Tara has now completed 8 years of her very diverse policing career….She has a very professional and dedicated work ethic and is well respected by her peers and supervisors. She is an asset to any platoon or team environment she is associated with and brings a wealth of experience and enthusiasm.” Exhibit 5, Tab 4F

“Constable Kramp is an excellent police officer….is passionate about policing….performed many hours of Acting Sergeant on her respective Platoon. She handled this role with ease….Constable Kramp has been transferred to the Offender Management Unit where she will succeed without a doubt.” Exhibit 5, Tab 4G “Tara can be counted on to act in a professional manner when dealing with peers, members of the public and offenders….Although all team members are of excellent caliber, Tara stands out in the area of learning and becoming proficient in new processes….Tara has been a valuable and productive member of our team.

She has a strong work ethic, experience, intelligence and the ability to quickly adapt to various circumstances with short notice.” (OMU) Exhibit 5, Tab 4H “Tara continues to be a valuable and productive member of OMU. Tara’s efforts, skills and abilities have greatly contributed to the success of the unit.” Exibit 5, Tab 4I “Tara has been an extremely valuable part of the OMU team for the past three years. She is leaving her present position and returning to uniform due to tenure….Everyone is replaceable. That said, Tara will be hard to replace.

She is one of the founding members of the enforcement component of OMU. Her contribution to every aspect of building the team was a very large part of the success of the team.” Exhibit 5, Tab 4J “Tara is well liked by supervisors and peers. Tara commented about working steady 1600s and this issue will have to be discussed with S/Sgt Fitzgerald before returning to work. Tara has spoken to me about her difficult year and situations which resulted in her using a more than normal amount of sick time. Tara was open to the changes to assist her in overcoming issues to help her return to frontline patrol.

Unfortunately this PDR is based only on a partial yea because Tara went to RRC.” (Regional Reporting Centre 2010-11) Exhibit 5, Tab 4K [ 40 ] During her 14 years with DRPS Ms. Kramp worked in uniform capacity at 19 Division. Early in her career she worked in the Drug Enforcement Unit for a year. She worked as part of two different teams investigating two separate attempt murders. She was also part of the SAVILLE Homicide Investigation Team. Ms. Kramp was often sought out to be involved in murder investigations because of her exceptional investigative skills.

Her last major assignment was as a founding member of the Offender Management Unit where she worked for three years. She received an Inspector’s Commendation for her actions in saving a woman from lighting herself on fire with lighter fluid at a GO station in 2004. [ 41 ] On November 5, 2010, Ms. Kramp was transferred to the Regional Reporting Centre.

There is a stark contrast between the police officer reflected in the above-noted examples contained in her yearly evaluations and letters of commendation from 1998 until 2010 and the police officer who was relegated to the Regional Reporting Centre, who can be heard expressing frustration and dislike for her profession in wiretap conversations, who was off sick more days than she was permitted and who was clearly under the influence of alcohol on numerous occasions while she was on the job. In 2011, Ms. Kramp took 51 days off work for being sick.

In the first 11 days of 2012, she reported off-duty for being sick on six days. On January 11, 2012, as part of an informal hearing, Ms. Kramp was required to forfeit 8 hours without pay as a result of not reporting an off-duty motor vehicle collision with a Nissan Sentra outside an Oshawa area LCBO. It was clear from many of the wiretap conversations played at the preliminary hearing that Ms. Kramp was drinking alcohol at work and then driving home or drinking at her home and then driving to work. During the period from January 2012 until her arrest on June 12, 2012, Ms.

Kramp was completely out of control because of her addiction to alcohol. [ 42 ] In 2005, Ms. Kramp’s father, who was also an alcoholic, died very suddenly from a heart attack. I was advised in letters from her family members and in her psychologist’s report that the death of her father created many unresolved personal issues for Ms. Kramp. She was also involved in an abusive personal relationship with another police officer, which also contributed to her increasing use of alcohol to help her cope with the effects of the abuse.

Her father had apparently confronted her about this abusive relationship, which led to their being estranged just before his sudden death. I was advised by Mr. Khehra and by Ms. Kramp that she is still not able to fully discuss the details of the abuse she experienced. Dr. Challis opined in his report that Ms. Kramp’s “poor judgment and alcohol use were instrumental in her remaining in [that] emotionally abusive interpersonal relationship.” [ 43 ] Further, in April 2010, Ms. Kramp developed a serious sleeping disorder, which prevented her from falling asleep.

She was prescribed various medications; however, they did not resolve her difficulties. This is reflected by her family doctor, Dr. Andree Hollander at Exhibit 3, Tab 4. During her oral statement, she advised me she attended a sleep apnea clinic but discovered this was not the cause of her sleeplessness; rather it was identified as psychosomatic insomnia, which she was told would take a long time before it corrected itself. [ 44 ] By the end of 2010, Ms. Kramp had completely cut herself off from her family members and close friends, who reflect this in their character letters. According to Ms.

Kramp’s oral statement to the court and Dr. Challis, Ms. Kramp’s psychologist, Ms. Kramp increasing used alcohol to assist her in falling asleep and to deal with the abusive relationship she was involved in. Ms. Kramp requested working steady afternoon shifts (1600s) to assist her with her sleep difficulties but as a result of being transferred to the RRC she worked steady day shift. The letters from her mother, Patti Kramp (Exhibit 2, Tab 3), and her sister, Stacy How (Exhibit 2, Tab 4) describe Ms.

Kramp’s steady decline from early 2010 onwards. [ 45 ] There is a family history of alcoholism on both sides of Ms. Kramp’s family. She advised me that by early spring 2011 she was drinking alcohol daily. In October 2011, Ms. Kramp experienced hallucinations because of her excessive drinking and as a result checked herself into a detox facility; however, after 30 hours she signed herself out believing she could stop drinking on her own. By the end of 2011, Ms. Kramp was associating with individuals she previously would never have dreamed associating with.

She was not able to properly function as a police officer; she was upset with her supervisors because she believed they should be providing her with assistance for her drinking. Ms. Kramp was offered assistance with her drinking in October 2011 during a meeting with Supt Mills, Sgt. Dave Quantrill and Liz Cserhati but Ms. Kramp advised her superiors she her drinking was under control. Dr. Challis describes in his report, referred to below, that because of Ms. Kramp’s excessive drinking she was completely out of control and unable to accept or recognize any assistance offered to her.

From late 2011 until her arrest she was on a path of self-destruction. [ 46 ] Her sister, Stacy How, describes the arrest as saving Tara Kramp’s life. As a result of being arrested she admitted herself

into Homewood Health Centre on July 11, 2012. She successfully completed the 30 day in-patient treatment program when she was released on August 15, 2012. Ms. Kramp was not able to actively seek treatment on a regular basis during the first 10 months of house arrest; however, after her bail was varied to a curfew she began attending Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) several times a week.

In addition, she registered on April 30, 2013 and completed a 15 week out-patient treatment program, the Distant Delivery portion of Renascent’s Complete Care Program on July 17, 2013. [ 47 ] Her AA sponsor, Terri Korkush, wrote a letter (Exhibit 2, Tab 2) reflecting Ms. Kramp’s attending AA meeting since May 2013 and confirms Ms. Kramp’s attending 4-5 meetings per week. Ms. Kramp has utilized her own struggles with alcoholism and has begun to assist those coming out of treatment or jail by running 12 step programs.

She has also started speaking at Durham College to relate her story. [ 48 ] Reg McIntyre, a family friend and retired Durham Police Inspector, wrote a letter on behalf of Ms. Kramp. (Exhibit 2, Tab 1) Shortly after his retirement in 1996, Mr. McIntyre went to work at a local golf course where Ms. Kramp’s parents owned and operated the restaurant and catering business. This was where he first met Ms. Kramp, as she worked full time for her parents. Ms. Kramp expressed to him her desire to become a police officer, which he encouraged her to pursue.

He was aware of her becoming a police officer in 1998 and when he was teaching at Durham College in Justice Studies would often hear positive reports from both students and officers taking his courses. He lost touch with Ms. Kramp for a few years but met her at an AA meeting sometime after her arrest. Mr. McIntyre is an alcoholic and has been involved with AA since 1997. Mr.

McIntyre’s letter is very insightful and the following passages are worth reproducing: Over the past 14-15 months, I have met Tara at AA meetings and we have met for lunch on several occasions….I have seen a tremendous positive change in Tara, particularly in this past year. She has taken responsibility for what has happened and she understands the disease of alcoholism, which will never be cured….Tara knows and understands the devastation and hurt her actions have caused the police service, her family and friends. She has also come to accept that she has destroyed the career that she loved.

I do not think any penalty or sanction could compare to this loss. Tara is truly ashamed of her actions and extremely remorseful for the damage she has caused. [ 49 ] A total of 12 character letters were provided in Exhibit 2. These letters all reflect the total shock and surprise their authors experienced when they learned about the charges laid against Tara Kramp because they were so out of character for her. Ms. Kramp is described as a compassionate, caring individual, dedicated to her family, extremely hardworking and committed to her profession. These letters reflect Ms.

Kramp’s sincere remorse for her actions and the damage her actions caused the police service, her family and friends and the community. The letters reflect Ms. Kramp’s efforts in overcoming her addiction to alcohol so that she has experienced sobriety since her arrest on June 12, 2012. Further, since April 2013 Ms. Kramp has provided urine to Canadian Medical Laboratories for drug/alcohol screening. The results of these weekly screenings corroborate Ms.

Kramp assertion that she has been alcohol free. (See Exhibit 3, Tab 5) The letters also all reflect her strong desire to become a police officer, her dedication to her position and her regret that she has destroyed her career. It is abundantly clear that Ms. Kramp has a tremendous support system in place with her family, friends, AA and her psychologist, Dr. Challis. [ 50 ] Ms. Kramp worked very hard to earn the respect and trust she enjoyed from her superiors and her colleagues. All of that has been destroyed by her conduct and as a result of the charges laid against her.

The news media reports (Exhibit 4) described Ms. Kramp, a Durham police officer, being charged as a result of a drug sweep which resulted in 32 persons being charged with drug trafficking offences, conspiracy to traffic and reference to seizures of cocaine, marihuana, steroids and OxyContin, as well as $800,000 in cash and five guns. The news articles also reflect Ms. Kramp being charged with breach of trust and attempting to obstruct justice. There were no follow-up media reports indicating the drug-related charges were withdrawn by the Crown for no reasonable prospect of conviction. I was advised by Mr.

Khehra that Ms. Kramp’s friends on the police force have for the most part abandoned her since her arrest and her charges. It is my view that one of the mitigating circumstances I can take into account is the significant fall from grace and loss of respect and trust Ms. Kramp has experienced because she breached her position of trust; however, it is not a circumstance upon which undue weight should be placed. In some respects Ms. Kramp is the author of her own misfortune. [ 51 ] Ms. Kramp sought out the assistance of Dr.

Gary Challis, a clinical psychologist, who provides therapy, treatment planning and assessments with Dr. Hank Frazer and Consultants in Whitby, Ontario. He has seen Ms. Kramp on a weekly basis for psychotherapy since November 4, 2013. His report is contained in Exhibit 3, Tab 4. The report reveals Ms. Kramp alcohol abuse from 2010 until her arrest June 12, 2012 progressed to her use alcohol both at and away from her place of work. As reflected in Dr. Challis’ report: My clinical impressions are that Ms.

Kramp developed significant emotional difficulties as a result of a variety of factors involving her work demands and responsibilities and an emotionally abusive relationship. Her ineffective methods of coping unfortunately began to involve increasing levels of alcohol use and abuse. Her personality structure contributed to her inability to effectively seek assistance for her relationship and alcohol issues.

She remained in the self-destructive pattern of the relationship and unfortunately utilized ineffective if not destructive coping strategies to such an extent that her judgment and capacity to withdraw from the spiral of her behaviour was so significantly impaired that any ability to effectively complete her job demands and personal health and well-being were severely compromised. …Choices that were made under the influence of alcohol have clearly led to destructive outcomes regarding her personal health, interpersonal relationships and clearly her occupation.

Her abuse was so extreme and out of control that, in my opinion, she had no ability whatsoever to contain or restrict her drinking or minimize its extensive and detrimental impact on her life. Prior to her arrest, her abuse was at a pinnacle and completely out of containment. She could not make appropriate life choices and her actions were entirely self- destructive. [ 52 ] It is important to note that as a result of the positive and significant steps taken by Ms. Kramp to ending her addiction to alcohol and terminating the abusive relationship, Ms. Kramp’s prognosis is extremely optimistic and encouraging.

All of the character letters from family and close friends have seen a significant change for the better in Ms. Kramp’s lifestyle and attitude. Mr. McIntyre, in his letter, makes this observation:

I have seen a lot of growth and maturity in Tara in a relatively short period of time. She now resembles the bright, happy (as she can beunder the circumstances) and articulate individual that I always knew her to be. Through my experiences on a professional level and as amember of AA, I firmly believe that Tara is well on her way in recovery and will never be before the courts again under circumstances ofa criminal nature. Tara has actively embraced treatment and the support given to her. I firmly believe Tara will move forward from thuisexperience in a positive way and will not repeat her mistakes. [53] Dr.

Challis in his report addresses the risk of Ms. Kramp re-offending. Currently, Ms. Kramp is actively involved in therapy and has ended both her abusive relationship and her use of alcohol. Therapeuticallythere is a focus on her developing greater insight into her motivations, anxieties, insecurities and fears as well as helping her to recoverher sense of self-worth and competence. In my opinion, given the severity of the negative effects that her prior behaviour has had across all aspects of her life, Ms.

Kramp hasactively chosen to move herself away from the destructive elements in her life and has both adopted and embraced many of the elementsof her lifestyle that were present prior to the onset of her abusive relationship and alcohol abuse. A lifestyle that was healthy, personallyrewarding and led her to seek and be successful in her chosen profession as a police officer.

In my opinion, her recovery of those valuesand her strong capacity to move and successfully remain away from the identified destructive influences are the greatest assurance thatshe does not possess nor present as a risk with regard to any threat regarding the community or herself with respect to reoffending. I would also note that risk factors for relapse often include an individual becoming isolated and withdrawing from supportive elements intheir life (AA, therapy, self-help activities). In my opinion Ms.

Kramp’s health has become stabilized and is improving as she is activelypursuing and engaging in her healthy life choices as previously described. It is important her current supports and lifestyle remain inplace to ensure that her gains remain intact. [54] Ms. Kramp has not put forward her addiction to alcohol as an excuse or justification for her breach of trust.

She hasaccepted responsibility for her actions and recognizes the damage she caused to the reputation of the police service and her colleagues.She has pleaded guilty, which is an expression of her remorse and is a mitigating circumstance to be considered on sentence. [55] Ms. Kramp is a first offender as she has no prior criminal record. Mr. Khehra has pointed to a number of cases in theOntario Court of Appeal which address sentencing first offenders. In R. v. Stein (1974), (ON CA), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 376(Ont.

C.A.) at page 377, Martin J.A. made it clear that in the case of a first offender, the court should explore all other dispositionsbefore imposing a custodial sentence: It is the view of the Court that the sentence imposed upon the appellant does reflect an error in principle. In our view, before imposing acustodial sentence upon a first offender the sentencing Court should explore the other dispositions which are open to him and onlyimpose a custodial sentence where the circumstances are such, or the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate.

Inour view, this offence does not fall within the category of offences where a custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentence to beimposed upon a first offender, nor are there other circumstances which require the imposition of a custodial sentence. [Emphasis added] [56] In R. v. Priest, (ON CA), [1996] O.J. No. 3369 (Ont. C.A.) Rosenberg, J.A. made the followingcomments concerning R. v.

Stein, supra: (at paras. 18 and 19) As the Stein case shows, it has been an important principle of sentencing in this province that the sentence should constitute theminimum necessary intervention that is adequate in the particular circumstances. This principle implies that trial judges considercommunity-based dispositions first and impose more serious forms of punishment only when necessary. These principles have now beencodified in the recently proclaimed sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Section 718(

c) instructs that separation of offendersfrom society is an appropriate objective of sentencing "where necessary".

Section 718.2(

d) directs that an offender should not bedeprived of liberty "if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances". The principle embodied in now s. 718.2(

e) was of particular significance in this case. It provides that "all available sanctions other thanimprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to thecircumstances of aboriginal offenders". [57] Ms. Kramp has already spent time in custody, both in terms of actual time in pre-trial detention, three days, in segregation.Mr. Khehra has referred to this as excruciatingly unbearable for Ms. Kramp to be staying in the institution she had put individuals forbreaking the law. Ms. Kramp told me it was by far the worst experience of her life.

In addition, Ms. Kramp spent 10 months on bailconditions that were more onerous than the majority of conditional sentences imposed. She was not permitted to be outside her residenceunless she was in a residential treatment facility, which she entered on July 11, 2012 and released back to her home on August 15, 2012.She was on house arrest until April 10, 2013 when her house arrest was varied to a curfew. She remained on a curfew until October 9,2013 when that condition was completely deleted. In my view, the principles articulated by Justice Rosenberg in R. v. Downes, (ON CA), [2006] O.J.

No. 555 (C.A.) justify taking into account the 10 months of strict house arrest as a mitigating factoron sentence. Justice Rosenberg held at para. 29: Stringent bail conditions, especially house arrest, represent an infringement on liberty and are, to that extent, inconsistent with thefundamental principle of the presumption of innocence. House arrest is a form of punishment, albeit of a different character than actualincarceration. Pre-sentence house arrest varies little in character from the house arrest that is often imposed as a term of a conditionalsentence under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code. [58] Ms.

Kramp served the equivalent of a 10 month conditional sentence while she was subject to what can only be describedas a highly restrictive house arrest condition. Initially she was only allowed out of her residence in the company of one of her sureties orwhile in a residential treatment facility. This was varied a little more than three months later to allow her to attend counselling with herdoctor without her sureties attending with her. She was not permitted to be absent from her residence to work. She was not permitted toattend religious services.

She was not permitted to leave her residence once a week to do personal shopping for a few hours as manyindividuals on a conditional sentence are permitted. She was required to live with her mother although she had been living independently

for many years. Ms. Kramp had no prior record. Even after the house arrest condition was deleted she continued to have a curfew restriction for approximately six months. [ 59 ] Justice Rosenberg in Downes , , supra , set out the approach a judge should take in determining the appropriate credit to be given strict bail conditions at para.37 : In

summary, credit for pre-trial bail conditions should be approached in the following manner: 1. Time spent on stringent pre-sentence bail conditions, especially house arrest, is a relevant mitigating factor. 2. As such, the trial judge must consider the time spent on bail under house arrest in determining the length of sentence. 3. The failure of the trial judge to explain why time spent on bail under house arrest has not been taken into account is an error in principle. 4.

The amount of credit to be given for time spent on bail under house arrest is within the discretion of the trial judge and there is no formula that the judge is required to apply. 5. The amount of credit will depend upon a number of factors including, the length of time spent on bail under house arrest; the stringency of the conditions; the impact on the offender's liberty; the ability of the offender to carry on normal relationships, employment and activity. 6.

Where the offender asks the trial judge to take pre-sentence bail conditions into account, the offender should supply the judge with information as to the impact of the conditions. If there is a dispute as to the impact of the conditions, the onus is on the offender to establish those facts on a balance of probabilities in accordance with s. 724(3) of the Criminal Code . [ 60 ] The Crown did not disagree that I should consider the stringent bail conditions Ms. Kramp was subject to for sixteen months, which included 10 months of strict house arrest and six months of curfew.

It is my view, having regard to all of Ms. Kramp’s circumstances; the appropriate credit for the sixteen months spent on strict bail conditions is four months. [ 61 ] There is one area of disagreement between Mr. Khehra and Mr. Scrutton which relates to Ms. Kramp’s motivation to commit the breach of trust she did. Mr. Scrutton during his submissions drew my attention to the following passage in Dr. Challis’ report: Ms.

Kramp developed significant anger and upset toward her employer in light of the obvious issues that she was experiencing, and her employer’s inaction to help her mitigate, cope or resolve her difficulties. Ms. Kramp was unable to resolve her issues independently for the psychological, substance and personal issues outline and relied upon the direction and intervention of others. Her anger is based on the belief that her employer was aware of her alcohol issues and failed to act to help her mitigate her condition.

Her poor judgment and aggressive, derogatory responses are, in my opinion, a result of the combination of circumstances and stressors with which she was coping ineffectively at that time. [ 62 ] Mr. Scrutton argued that Ms. Kramp does not come within the exceptional circumstances of addiction identified in the cases as significantly reducing the need to address denunciation and deterrence because her motivation to provide the CPIC and DRMS information was as a result of anger. It is my view that Mr. Scrutton has completely misconstrued Dr. Challis’ meaning when he was referring to the “anger and upset” Ms.

Kramp experienced towards her superiors. This anger and upset was over the fact she believed her supervisors and superiors were aware of her addiction but did nothing to assist. Dr. Challis does not indicate in his report that Ms. Kramp committed the breach of trust out of anger. He refers to the personal abuse she experienced from her partner and her increasing abuse of alcohol in an attempt to cope with the emotional abuse she was experiencing.

It was his opinion …her abuse was so extreme and out of control that, in my opinion, she had no ability whatsoever to contain or restrict her drinking or minimize its extensive and detrimental impact on her life. Prior to her arrest, her abuse was at a pinnacle and completely out of containment. She could not make appropriate life choices and her actions were entirely self-destructive . [ Emphasis added ] [ 63 ] It is my view, based on the materials before me that Ms.

Kramp developed a serious addiction to alcohol, which controlled her life to the extent she was unable to make appropriate choices between what she knew was right and what she knew was wrong. As I have referred to previously, this does not provide an excuse or justification for Ms. Kramp’s conduct. She knew what she was doing was wrong that it would lead to her being charged criminally and very likely will lead to her losing her employment as a police officer. The Appropriate Sentence [ 64 ] I have outlined the aggravating and mitigating circumstances above, which I take into account in imposing sentence.

It is my view this is a case involving the exceptional mitigating circumstances recognized in R. v. Lensen . I recognize that in a breach of trust involving a police officer the paramount sentencing principles are denunciation and general deterrence. Ms. Kramp’s conduct in providing confidential police information to her friends was a serious breach of trust. If there were no exceptional mitigating circumstances Ms. Kramp would be going to jail for the term of imprisonment sought by the Crown of 12 months less pre-trial credit of four months and 5 days. However, I find there are exceptional circumstances. Ms.

Kramp was involved in an emotionally abusive relationship with a police officer for a number of years, which the psychological report reflects significantly affected her ability to function, both in her personal life and in her job. She was also dealing with the sudden death of her father, with whom she was estranged because of his views concerning her personal relationship with the fellow police officer. These events led Ms. Kramp to turn to alcohol to try and cope with the loss of her father and the emotional abuse inflicted on her by her partner. In 2010, Ms.

Kramp was reassigned to uniform duties from the Offender Management Unit where she had worked on steady afternoon shift for three years. She developed a serious sleep disorder and requested she be allowed to work steady afternoons. Instead of accommodating her request she was assigned to the Regional Reporting Centre. Her drinking increased to the point where she was drinking both before going into work and after work as

well as while she was at work. Dr. Challis’ report reflects she was drinking daily. Ms. Kramp also advised me during her oral statement her drinking patterns. As Dr. Challis indicates, “Prior to her arrest, her abuse was at a pinnacle and completely out of containment. She could not make appropriate life choices and her actions were entirely self-destructive.” [ 65 ] Ms. Kramp loved being a police officer; it was the most important thing in her life prior to being affected by alcohol. She advised me policing meant everything to her and she strived to do her best. The evaluations corroborate what she advised me.

She was an excellent police officer, dedicated, hard-working, a “go to” person, dependable, intelligent, self-motivated and a productive team member. Her family and friends all attest to the significant change in Ms. Kramp in the year and a half leading up to her arrest. Her absences from work indicate a problem with alcohol. Her superiors confronted her about this in 2011 but she believed she was able to control her drinking. She did not believe she was an alcoholic. She could not have been more wrong. I believe Ms.

Kramp would not be before me charged with breach of trust if she had accepted that offer of assistance. [ 66 ] Since her arrest Ms. Kramp has dedicated herself to seeking professional assistance to overcome her addiction to alcohol and to receive psychotherapy with Dr. Challis to help her gain insight and deal with her emotional issues involving her abusive partner. She has also had to deal with a medical sleep disorder which she is now addressing through medication and her family doctor. She attends AA meetings 4-5 times a week. She has put in place a strong support system with family and friends.

According to Dr. Challis there is little likelihood of her re-offending. She has re-embraced her previous healthy life choices. She has not consumed alcohol since her arrest on June 12, 2012. She provided weekly toxicology reports which corroborate her assertion of sobriety. She has undergone significant and substantial rehabilitation but I believe she recognizes she will continue to need to assistance of family and friends and AA and her therapists for the foreseeable future. The Crown acknowledges the tremendous success Ms.

Kramp has achieved over the past two years in overcoming her addiction and dealing with her emotional issues. The principle of specific deterrence has certainly been met by Ms. Kramp’s success in overcoming her addiction and addressing her underlying emotional issues which led to her consuming alcohol to excess. [ 67 ] The character letters reflect not only that Ms. Kramp was of previous excellent good character, they also demonstrate that but for her addiction to alcohol it is highly unlikely and improbable she would have engaged in the conduct she has pled guilty to.

Her professional records support that conclusion as well. In my view this is one of the reasons why the Court of Appeal recognized that exceptional circumstances can reduce the need to focus primarily on denunciation and deterrence. An informed public would appreciate and understand why jail may not be necessary for an individual who suffered from significant emotional stresses as well as a serious addiction to alcohol and who has been subject to extremely stringent bail conditions which approximate a conditional sentence. Mr.

Scrutton submitted that rehabilitation is not a sentencing principle of any importance in a case involving a breach of trust by a police officer. It is my view that rehabilitation becomes more important where there are exceptional mitigating circumstances such as alcohol addiction and this is recognized by the Court of Appeal. In light of the exceptional circumstances it is my view that denunciation becomes less important. [ 68 ] Ms. Kramp will likely lose the job she loves because of being convicted of two indictable offences.

From her commendations and awards and her yearly evaluations it is clear she was an excellent police officer. She has destroyed the respect and trust she experienced as a police officer. She recognizes the damage her actions have done to the Durham Regional Police Service. She recognizes how her actions have affected the public’s confidence and trust in the administration of justice. Ms. Kramp has had to deal with the loss of her friendships with fellow officers since her arrest. She was stigmatized with charges involving conspiracy to traffic in drugs, namely cocaine and OxyContin.

She was charged with trafficking in OxyContin. The Crown withdrew those two charges at the commencement of the preliminary inquiry because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Unfortunately for Ms. Kramp this was not reported by the news media although those charges were front and centre in the news media and the majority of the 32 other individuals charged in Project Loadstar were charged with similar drug offences. I agree with Justice Cowan that the news media coverage, the very real likelihood Ms.

Kramp will lose her job, her fall from grace in the eyes of the police service and her colleagues and peers all contribute to addressing the principle of general deterrence. [ 69 ] It is important to note that her actions did not jeopardize any ongoing investigations or prosecutions. Although there was a risk an informant might have been identified, it did not occur. She did not provide the name of any confidential informant to anyone. This is acknowledged by the Crown. [ 70 ] I have given Ms.

Kramp credit for the stringent bail conditions, which included restrictive house arrest condition and later a curfew condition, of four months. She has already served the equivalent of a 10 month conditional sentence. She spent 3 days in segregation. On a 1.5 to 1 basis this equates to 5 days of real jail. In many of the cases provided to me the police officer charged never spends anytime in pretrial custody and the bail conditions are not onerous or stringent. [ 71 ] The sentencing process is a balancing act, balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine a fit sentence.

But for the exceptional and extenuating mitigating circumstances in this case, Ms. Kramp would have received a severe penalty of jail, in addition to the 4 months pre-trial credit I have assessed. [ 72 ] Consequently, considering all of the circumstances of this case, sentence on the Breach of Trust is suspended and Ms.

Kramp will be placed on probation for a period of three years with conditions. [ 73 ] Conditions will include, statutory terms, keep the peace and be of good behaviour; report forthwith to a probation officer and thereafter as required, reside at any address approved of by your probation officer, continue counselling with Dr.

Gary Challis or his designate unless you have written permission from your probation officer to stop that counselling, attend any counselling as recommended by your probation officer and not stop that counselling unless you have your probation officer’s written permission, sign any releases or waivers to permit your doctor, therapist or counsellor to speak to your probation officer for the purpose of discussing your progress, perform 150 hours of community service work, and not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code . [ 74 ] With respect to the charge of unsafe storage of firearms, it is my view this charge arose because of Ms.

Kramp’s addiction to alcohol. She had a gun locker. Most of her long guns, which she legally possessed with the appropriate FACs, were in the gun case. One long gun was not stored in the locker. It was on the floor, unloaded with no ammunition anywhere near where it was located. The

trigger lock was on the floor next to the long gun. [ 75 ] In the circumstances of this charge it is my view the appropriate sentence is a fine, which will be in the amount of $250.00. Released: July 29, 2014 Signed: “Justice Peter C. West”