Off-duty meeting with teenage girls involving beer and cigarettes was a serious breach of trust justifying dismissal: Arbitrator
An Ontario arbitrator has upheld the termination of a paramedic who met with and provided beer to two underage girls while off-duty.
Bobby Sankar, 41, was a paramedic with the City of Toronto for 10 years. He was considered a good employee with a discipline-free record and achieved additional qualifications beyond that of a basic paramedic.
In late 2011, Sankar experienced some adversity in his life. He and his wife lost their life savings in a bad real estate deal and he was diagnosed as diabetic. Trying to adjust to the medication while going through the financial difficulties led to Sankar feeling depressed, irritable and distant.
On Nov. 20, 2011, Sankar and his partner were called to a residential treatment centre for teenaged girls with mental health and other issues. They transported a 16-year-old girl who was reportedly suicidal and had tried to jump in front of a car to the hospital. Sankar rode with the girl in the back of the ambulance and completed a report documenting her condition, age and the reason for the call.
On Dec. 21, 2011, Sankar and his partner were called once again to the treatment centre regarding the same girl and a 15-year-old girl, who were reportedly cutting themselves. They took the girls to the hospital, with Sankar and a police officer riding in the back of the ambulance. Sankar filled out another report on the girls’ condition, noting the 16-year-old from the first call was on anti-depressant medication.
Friendly with patient
Two weeks later, on Jan. 5, 2012, Sankar brought a patient to the hospital and encountered the 15-year-old girl, who was there because of an eye injury. They talked and Sankar gave his cellphone number to the girl when she asked for it.
One week after that, on Jan. 13, the girl called Sankar while he was off-duty. He agreed to meet both girls at a local mall the next day, which was a Saturday.
Sankar picked up the girls at the mall and drove them to a nearby gas station, where he bought them cigarettes. Though he claimed he initially protested because they were underage, they persisted and, since he had seem them smoking before, he relented.
Sankar then drove to a pizza parlour, where he gave them $10 to buy pizza while he bought beer at a nearby beer store. Sankar claimed the beer was meant for a cricket practice he had later that evening. The girls asked for him to take them somewhere private to have a smoke, so he drove to a park, where they asked for some beer to celebrate the younger girl’s 16th birthday. Sankar claimed the girls took the beer on their own despite his protests that he didn’t agree with it, and stepped outside while he had some beer while sitting in the car. He claimed he remained in the car because the girls “were trying to get me involved but I didn’t want to.”
A police officer arrived while the girls were drinking and smoking outside the car. Sankar gave the officer his driver’s licence and, when the officer asked how he knew the girls, Sankar explained he was a paramedic.
The officer warned Sankar he knew the girls and said they had several sexual assault charges between them. Sankar replied that the girls were 18 and the officer told him they were 16 and “not to lie again.” The officer suggested Sankar “end this now” and Sankar got the girls back in the car and drove them back to the mall, where he gave them the rest of the beer and $20 before leaving. Sankar again claimed he didn’t give them the beer and money, but they took it themselves.
The girls later went to a police station to make a report about Sankar. The police investigated but no charges were laid. When the girls returned to the treatment centre, they talked to a child and youth worker, who filed a report.
Concerns about paramedic’s meeting with teenage patients
The treatment centre filed a “serious occurrence report” with the provincial Ministry of Children’s Services and it became required to fill out a form reporting any occasion when a resident was taken by ambulance without a staff member present. A staff member was also required to be present if a girl’s “vitals” were taken by a paramedic.
The city felt Sankar had breached the high level of trust and the professional standards of emergency services, and terminated his employment. Sankar said he “deeply regrets the incident” and accepted full responsibility, but grieved the termination, saying it wouldn’t happen again.
The arbitrator noted paramedics are held to a high standard of professional conduct, through the provincial basic life support patient care standards and Toronto’s public service guide charter of expectations.
“To perform this most critical of public functions, paramedics and the paramedic service require the complete trust and confidence of the public, and not just of those who are placed in their care but of those who care for them as well,” said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator found that by taking two adolescent girls — who he knew through his work and had given one his cell number while at work — to a parking lot to drink beer and smoke cigarettes and then lying to police — with whom he had to work on a daily basis — about their ages, Sankar breached the trust of the city and the public he served.
In addition, despite Sankar’s apology, the arbitrator found he didn’t accept full responsibility for his actions. Sankar tried to place the weight of responsibility on the girls, saying he didn’t agree with what they were doing and everything was their idea. He also didn’t seem to recognize any safety concerns with dropping them off at the mall on a Saturday night with beer and cigarettes, particularly since he knew they were troubled residents of a treatment centre, said the arbitrator.
“(The evidence) reveals nothing more than an off-duty paramedic who was repeatedly incapable of exercising better judgment than, and fully susceptible to the alleged predations of, two 15 or 16-year-old former patients,” said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator found Sankar committed a “very serious” and “unpardonable” breach of trust that, though it occurred while he was off-duty, originated from on-duty actions. The misconduct was serious enough to warrant dismissal.
For more information see:
