Glen Bannon, 57, of Echo Bay, Ontario, pled guilty to breach of trust (s. 122) and accepting bribes (s. 426 (1)(a)(ii)). Bannon received benefits totalling $142, 437.48 in exchange for purchases totalling $2,354,118.35 made to a car dealership (Highland Ford) by way of funds from the Anishinabek Police Service, of which he was the Chief of Police.
Here’s the decision.
Bannon received a year in prison, while David Worth, the owner of Highland Ford, was fined $100,000 ($86,956.52 plus a victim fine surcharge in the amount of $13,043.48).
Between 1999 and 2004, Highland Ford gave the following rewards, advantages or benefits, (goodies!) directly or indirectly, to Glen Bannon:
a) a 2000 Bombardier Skidoo valued at $6,532.35 in December, 1999;
b) a television and home entertainment system valued at $10,807.00 in April of 2000;
c) lease payments of $902./month between February, 2001 and March, 2003 on account of the lease of a 2001 Ford Expedition in the name of Barbara Bannon (spouse of Glen) from Highland Ford, totalling $21,648.00;
d) the re-build of a Chevy high performance stock car engine in the amount of $5,851.50 in June of 2001;
e) a 1999 Skidoo valued at $8,023.93 in November of 2001;
f) a 1977 MGB valued at $12,075.00 in January of 2002;
g) a double-side snowmobile trailer valued at $4,012.50 in March of 2003;
h) lease payments of $942./month between April, 2003 and October, 2004 on account of the lease of a 2003 Ford Expedition in the name of Barbara Bannon (spouse of Glen) from Highland Ford, totalling $17,898.00;
i) a Polaris ATV valued at $9,737.00 in May of 2003;
j) the re-build of a farm tractor engine valued at $5,852.20 in June of 2003;
k) a 1998 Ford F150 pick-up truck, apparently purchased on behalf of the OPP FNPS program, later sold to Carver Bannon (son of Glen) valued at $16,000.00 in July, 2003; and
l) a 2004 F Series 4 x 4 Super Crew pick-up truck, obtained by Mr. Bannon, in part, by Highland Ford using sale proceeds of the trade-in of a 2003 Ford Expedition, Eddie Bauer Edition, formerly purchased on behalf of the OPP FNPS program, valued at $24,000.00, in April of 2004.
…
29 It would be an understatement to say that Mr. Bannon has experienced a significant fall from grace as a result of his criminal charges and convictions. He has lost the respect of the Native community and the status within that community in being the Chief of Police. He has experienced social isolation and has been ostracized as a result of his criminal activity. Mr. Bannon has experienced a significant reduction in pay and undoubtedly as a result, a significant reduction in his standard of living as a result of losing his employment as Chief of Police of the Anishinabek Police Service. As indicated at Tab 2 of Exhibit 2, in his last full year as Chief of Police, Mr. Bannon earned $113,393.81. Up to the time of his termination on September 13, 2004, Mr. Bannon earned $112,539.20. In 2009, as the operator of Algoma Insulation, Mr. Bannon had an income of $15,224.00 as indicated in his notice of assessment. Obviously, the loss of employment has had a significant negative financial impact on Mr. Bannon.
…
33 Mr. Bannon has entered a guilty plea and is without a criminal record. This, along with the facts noted above, are significant mitigating factors when considering a proper and fit sentence to be imposed on Mr. Bannon.
34 The guilty plea itself is an indication of remorse and Mr. Bannon has indicated to the court that he was “truly sorry” for his criminal activity. These expressions of remorse must be tempered by the comments on page 22 of the Gladue report prepared by Mrs. Tijerina which reads as follows:
- “It appears that he harbours a lot of anger toward his current situation and the impact that this has had on his family; this is to be expected. He believes that he has been mentally and emotionally beaten into submission by the government and that his criminal matters are politically and racially motivated. He appeared emotional when expressing this view.”
…
47 I am not satisfied that Mr. Bannon’s health will be compromised if a period of incarceration in a provincial institution was imposed as a sentence, nor am I satisfied that adequate medical provisions cannot be made to ensure that Mr. Bannon’s medical needs are met. Undoubtedly, there have been individuals who received sentences of incarceration who have had medical difficulties and the facilities have managed these difficulties. One would expect a heightened sense of vigilance given what is at stake.
48 The gravity of the offences in counts 1 and 2 of the indictment committed by a person entrusted with protecting the law requires a period of incarceration and the principles of deterrence and denunciation cannot be adequately addressed by the imposition of a conditional sentence in the community. In my view, a conditional sentence would fall outside of a fit and just sentence considering the offences and the position of trust held by Mr. Bannon at the time of the commission of the offences. A conditional sentence in this case sends the wrong message about police officers who breach the public trust, to both the policing profession and to the community at large.
49 Mr. Glen Arthur Bannon, on count 1 of the indictment, being the breach of trust charge contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I sentence you to a period of incarceration of 12 months. Considering that count 1 is the substantive count, on count 2 of the indictment, I sentence you to a period of incarceration of 4 months to be served concurrently to the sentence imposed in count 1 of the indictment.
Turtle Talk 