Report on an inquiry into administration of internal investigations by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force


Case Chronology: Gordon Junger

This section presents the facts of the case of Gordon Junger, as it was revealed through extensive examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Sometimes the motivation of a witness, as it was expressed to the Inquiry, is also included. The chronology of this matter is provided without comment. Discussion of the issues and conclusions and recommendations follow in subsequent sections of this report.

Gordon Junger

In 1989, Constable Gordon Junger, a member of the force since 1980, and at the time attached to No. 52 Division, formed an association with Franklina (Roma) Langford, then a prostitute. In the spring, the two began living together at Langford's residence. In late July 1989, a report was received by the force's Internal Affairs unit that Junger and Langford were cohabitating.

In the fall of 1989, Langford and Junger engaged in the operation of an escort agency called "Pleasure Can Be Yours Escort Service" and advertised for clients and employees in a Toronto publication.

In early December, some four months after the first report was received by Internal Affairs, Langford contacted the unit about Junger's involvement in the escort service, as well as several other incidents of alleged discreditable conduct and dereliction of duty as those terms are defined in the Code of Offences in regulations of the Police Act.

She also advised that he was in possession of narcotics, and had checked out prospective employees of the escort service by means of the national police computer system (CPIC). She said she contacted police because she was concerned about Junger's behaviour and they were having arguments. She asked that her reporting of Junger to the force be kept confidential.

After some preliminary questions to a member of the morality squad, the two Internal Affairs investigators determined that it would be difficult to obtain criminal conviction against Junger on a prostitution-related charge.

With Langford's cooperation, the investigators set up a videotaped "sting" operation in an east-end Toronto hotel on December 5, 1989. Junger was arrested at the hotel immediately after receiving money from a policewoman posing as a civilian wishing to purchase sex with him. Junger was arrested for the criminal offence of living off the avails of prostitution.

The investigator who arrested Junger said he did not believe that he could get a conviction on the prostitution charge. He said he wanted to ensure that Junger was appropriately cautioned so that anything Junger said would be admissible. However, the investigator did not interrogate Junger about the alleged prostitution or about any other matter.

Officers searched Junger's vehicle, with his consent. Junger was then released unconditionally, according to the investigator. The investigator told the Inquiry that he believed he had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, but not to swear an information. No report of this arrest was ever made, although an arrest report is required under rules of the force.

Junger accompanied the investigators to the residence he occupied with Langford. The officers had a search warrant, and a search revealed a relatively small quantity of hashish. Junger was arrested, this time for possession of a narcotic. He was told that Internal Affairs had become involved because of information supplied by Roma Langford.

Junger was taken to a police station and released on an undertaking to a Justice of the Peace. The undertaking included the condition that he not communicate with Langford. Junger was suspended from duty that night.

No criminal or disciplinary charge for unauthorized use of CPIC was laid, although such use had been confirmed. After Junger's release, the investigators were informed that he was violating the conditions of his undertaking to stay away from Langford, but no criminal charge was laid. Junger was warned.

No written brief on the investigation was sent to the Trials Preparation Unit for the purpose of laying Police Act charges.

On Dec. 19, 1989, Langford met with Junger's lawyer and gave him a statement regarding the narcotic charge which conflicted with the information she had originally provided to police. She testified at the Inquiry that she was told what to say by Junger.

On Jan. 19, 1990, the Internal Affairs investigators met with Junger's lawyer at his office and they discussed the terms of an agreement prepared by the lawyer. The agreement, in summary, provided that:

  • Junger would resign from the force effective Feb. 1.

  • The outstanding charges of possession of a narcotic would be withdrawn and no Police Act or Criminal Code charges would be laid against him "arising from or with respect to his relationship both personal and business with Franklina Langford."

  • All physical evidence relating to the investigation was to be destroyed on or before May 1, 1990 with the exception of the officers' notes (although the physical evidence was not specified in the agreement, the police had in their possession a videotape of the "sting," the narcotic and some audio tapes provided by Langford). Internal Affairs was to inform Junger's lawyer in writing of compliance with this condition.

  • If a reference was requested by a third party, Junger was not to receive a derogatory letter of reference. The official position of the force was to be restricted to a form letter setting forth when he commenced employment and his position at that time.

  • The agreement was conditional upon all the above being completed.

  • All aspects of the agreement were to be kept confidential.

Before signing the agreement, the investigators sought the permission of their unit commander by telephone from the office of Junger's lawyer. In the unit commander's absence, a summary of their request and a partial description of the agreement was conveyed orally, through two other Internal Affairs members, to the Chief of Police. The Chief gave his permission.

Members of the Internal Affairs unit who wre aware of the contents of the agreement told the Inquiry that they had no intention of destroying evidence, despite the commitment in the agreement. They were intent on securing resignation of an office they did not believe should be a member of the force.

On Jan. 19, 1990, Junger signed a form application for resignation, to be effective Feb.1. The same day, one of the investigators completed a "request to withdraw charge" form for the narcotics charge. The reason given for the request to withdraw was that Langford would not be a credible witness.

The Department of Justice prosecutor who received the request to withdraw considered it appropriate, but sent the request to his supervisor because it involved a police officer. The supervisor of the prosecutions section for the Department of Justice decided to proceed with the charge.

On Feb. 21, the commander of the Internal Affairs unit, then Staff Inspector, now Superintendent Aiden Mahar, telephoned the supervisor of prosecutions. Mahar said that the force had an agreement that if Junger resigned, the charge would be dropped. He asked that the charge be withdrawn "in the interest of the force."

After further consultation with the Justice Department, it was agreed that the charge would be dropped. A letter confirming the decision emphasized that the decision was based on evidence, and was unrelated to the agreement with Junger.

On Feb. 8, the Chief of Police had made a brief verbal report on Junger to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board in closed session. The Chief had previously told the Board that there were allegations of prostitution, possession of marijuana and cohabitation with a prostitute. He advised the Board at this time that Junger had resigned.

On Feb. 22, the Board received a personnel report which contained Junger's resignation for "personal reasons." On Feb. 28, the narcotics charge was formally withdrawn.

In March 1990, the Chief became aware of the specific terms of the agreement. He did not advise the Board of its existence. The Chief and the force's legal advisor testified they recognized the potential for public criticism of the force. The Chief decided to keep the agreement secret. He asked the legal advisor to develop guidelines for vetting any future agreements.

In April 1990, after a story about the circumstances of the Junger resignation appeared in the Toronto Star, the then Chair of the Police Services Board, June Rowlands, met with Chief McCormack to discuss the matter. Ms. Rowlands said she did not ask for a copy of the agreement and was not given a copy. She said she did not believe that the Chief would have given her a copy. Ms. Rowlands testified that she did not have an opportunity to read the agreement until almost a year later, in February 1991, in her counsel's office.

In May 1990, the Police Services Board appointed a task force to examine reporting relationships between the Board and the Chief in cases of internal investigations of alleged wrongdoing by an officer, and the issue of agreements between the force and officers possibly facing disciplinary charges. No other action was taken by the Board at that time.

To date, according to testimony at the Inquiry, no member of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force has been called to account or reprimanded in connection with the agreement or the investigation generally.

In July 1990, the Ontario Provincial Police conducted an investigation into the force's handling of the Junger case, including the resignation agreement. It concluded there was no criminality involved.

More about Jane Doe... [Next] [Contents] [Gov. Reports]

Created: January 23, 1997
Last modified: February 12, 1997

CSIS Commercial Sex Information Service
Box 3075, Vancouver, BC V6B 3X6
Tel: +1 (604) 488-0710