Melisa Rancourt is headed to trial on charges including assault, uttering threats (death or bodily harm) and causing a disturbance.
Rancourt is a GSPS constable who faced disciplinary action during the pandemic after being arrested due to her refusal to show proof of vaccination.
She is now accused of assaulting a 12-year-old hockey player on Feb. 11.
Her attorney, Len Walker, told Espanola court that Rancourt would be proceeding to trial, and dates were set by Justice Dana Peterson.
First, Rancourt will appear July 15 for a trial confirmation hearing.
This appearance is for the accused, defence and Crown to confirm the details are in place for trial, i.e. that witnesses have been served with subpoenas, disclosure is complete and that the time estimate for the trial length remains the same.
Rancourt is scheduled to proceed with trial in Espanola court on Sept. 17 and 18, should nothing arise from the trial confirmation hearing.
In 2021, Rancourt was arrested and charged with resisting a peace officer and entering a premises when entry has been prohibited after she refused to provide proof of vaccination to attend her child’s hockey game at the Espanola Recreation Centre. Witness told Sudbury.com Rancourt yelled and screamed, called bystanders “nazis” and kicked a door while arguing with an OPP officer called by rec centre staff after the GSPS officer refused to show proof of vaccination.
These charges were dropped after Rancourt completed a diversion program, but she still faced a police disciplinary hearing. It was there that hearing judge, Superintendent Peter Lennox, determined Rancourt should be demoted from first-class constable to third-class constable for a period of one year, followed by one year in the rank of second-class constable, conditional on satisfactory performance of duty by the officer and the concurrence of her unit commander.
But Rancourt and her lawyer, David Butt, appealed Lennox’s decision. The appeal was heard April 20, 2023, and the decision handed down July 10, 2023.
Rancourt and Butt argued that the language of the decision, “conditional on satisfactory performance of duty by the officer and the concurrence of her unit commander,” gave too much power to the unit commander.
The panel hearing the appeal agreed, stating: “The penalty of demotion as worded is improper as it gives unfettered discretion to the unit commander.”
There are no other changes to the original decision, writes the panel. “The appeal is otherwise dismissed and the penalty confirmed.”
Rancourt will next appear in Espanola court on July 15 for trial confirmation.
