 At least 50 police officers currently suspended with pay in OntarioLaw & Order | 206780 hits | Jan 28 6:20 pm | Posted by: shockedcanadian Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net
It offends most intelligent people that suspended officers can sit at home watching television or golfing on full pay for years in Ontario.
Chris D. Lewis
Many taxpayers were horrified last month when they learned a suspended Waterloo Police Service officer emailed his superiors to thank them for the three years of fun and frolic he had while receiving full salary.
Last week, the Toronto Sun covered a similar situation in which a Durham Regional officer has been suspended with pay for six years, as he progresses through various hearings and tribunals. Sadly, these are not isolated cases, but a regular occurrence in Ontario. In fact in my final years with the OPP, I witnessed two separate instances where sergeants facing serious criminal charges were suspended for several years without missing so much as a single paycheque. It was nauseating to say the least.
Two things need be made clear: Firstly, the vast majority of officers are honest, committed, brave and hard working. Some do make mistakes, most without malice, but occasionally one does something criminal in nature. Regardless they all must be held appropriately accountable.
Secondly, this situation is not the fault of the police chiefs. In fact, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) has been calling “upon the Government of Ontario to amend the Police Services Act to allow for the suspension without pay of police officers charged … where the chief of police will seek dismissal of the officer” since 2007. It is the Police Services Act (PSA) that provides authority for hearings to be held and to mete out punishment for proven transgressions, up to and including dismissal.
Traditionally chiefs only suspend officers for serious criminal allegations, when they will be seeking dismissal and when there is a reasonable expectation that they will be convicted.
If not likely to be dismissed, it is better for the officer — who is assumed innocent until proven guilty — to do meaningful work, as opposed to being castigated before due process occurs. This is not about those officers.
In one highly publicized case, then-chief Bill Blair of the Toronto Police Service brought Constable James Forcillo back to work from suspension after being charged with murder. I’m not saying I agree with that eyebrow-raising decision, but in most cases, if the officer is not going to be dismissed, it is appropriate to have them continue doing their normal or amended duties for their salary.
At times officers are suspended over alleged egregious offences that occurred off duty and had nothing to do with their employment as a police officer. Two Toronto officers that murdered their wives come immediately to mind as well as another that killed his girlfriend. Unless held in custody before conviction, those officers would have received full salary as well. The chiefs would have had no other option.
Some police associations purposely drag out cases with extended trial dates and appeals even when they know full well the member will be convicted — simply to allow the member to reach a pensionable position. Wonderful. These officers have let down their colleagues and the public they serve, but are protected and allowed to sit at home on full pay while other good cops pick up the slack — then qualify for a lifelong pension.
It should be a no-brainer that officers be suspended without pay for flagrant and serious criminal offences that occur on or off duty. Their association could help them through financially, and they could recover lost wages through an established agreement or through a civil process if acquitted. If they aren't getting paid or if the association is funding their salary, they will all want the process to run its course quickly, as do victims and witnesses.
Government needs to immediately amend the antiquated PSA to allow this authority as soon as possible. Ontario remains the only province that hasn’t done just that. It is critical to maintaining public trust — particularly at a time when deserved or not (often not), police in North America are suffering from a growing image problem.
It offends most informed and intelligent people that suspended officers can sit at home watching television or golfing on full pay for years in Ontario. That simply doesn’t happen to the same degree elsewhere in Canada. In the U.S., they’d be immediately fired for many such offences, not coddled for enough years to earn a nice pension.
Chris D. Lewis was the Commissioner of the OPP from 2010 to 2014.
© Toronto Star. All rights reserved.
http://thestar.com/#/article/opinion/co ... t-pay.html
Good luck amending the PSA because that isn't the problem. The problem is a persons right to be considered innocent till proven guilty. If we start arbitrarily denying people the right to earn a living without due process we had better be prepared to start doing it for everyone in society because, once the genie's out of the bottle it'll be hard to put him back in.
I've seen this exact same scenario play out in the military decades ago. There was a CPO1 who was charged with theft and before he'd even been sent to a Court Martial the powers that be took him out of his position and put him in with the Base Manual Party picking up butts with the clowns awaiting release. Well, that didn't work out to well for the Crown because he got a lawyer, appealed his arbitrary punishment and sued the Queen. So, given the JAG's and the Base Commanders fuck up he was quietly but honourably released with his full pension and all benefits, never having seen the inside of a Court Room. Was he guilty. Yes, was he properly dealt with. No.
So this scenario would likely play out the same with any police officer they tried to get rid of without giving him his day in court.
Unfortunately these clowns have rights. You can't deny a person their livelyhood without proof of wrong doing and without due process. So, the best they can do is keep them away from the rest of us and if it costs to do that then it's just the price of having a legal system that supposes innocence before guilt.
Sorry that's not the case at all. As the article above makes clear, Ontario cops are the only cops in North America who get salary while awaiting trial for criminal charges, and US cops often get fired almost immediately when charged, not just 'suspended'. Also note that EVEN IF CONVICTED of an offence, Ontario cops STILL GET PAID unless actually sentenced to serve time in prison. So if sentenced to probation, community service, house arrest etc. they still collect. Possibly while working another job and therefore taking in MORE money than before. Who ever said crime doesn't pay?
Most employers fire workers with extreme prejudice at the mere SUSPICION of violating a workplace policy, let alone actual criminal charges. In fact, most employers wouldn't even involve the police in less serious crimes, just to avoid public attention.
Unfortunately these clowns have rights. You can't deny a person their livelyhood without proof of wrong doing and without due process. So, the best they can do is keep them away from the rest of us and if it costs to do that then it's just the price of having a legal system that supposes innocence before guilt.
Sorry that's not the case at all. As the article above makes clear, Ontario cops are the only cops in North America who get salary while awaiting trial for criminal charges, and US cops often get fired almost immediately when charged, not just 'suspended'. Also note that EVEN IF CONVICTED of an offence, Ontario cops STILL GET PAID unless actually sentenced to serve time in prison. So if sentenced to probation, community service, house arrest etc. they still collect. Possibly while working another job and therefore taking in MORE money than before. Who ever said crime doesn't pay?
Most employers fire workers with extreme prejudice at the mere SUSPICION of violating a workplace policy, let alone actual criminal charges. In fact, most employers wouldn't even involve the police in less serious crimes, just to avoid public attention.
If that's true then why have other police officers been suspended with pay awaiting criminal charges?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... cle561756/
The RCMP said he's been suspended with pay while the force conducts its own internal investigation, and pending the outcome in court.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mountie-accus ... 21004.html
There are alot more than just these two if you'd like me to post them. I'm not going to say the author is wrong but he just might be misinformed. So I'll stand by my statement that you can't deny a person their right to earn a living based on accusations.
Rights my ass, FOG... pretty sure that at my job, I can get fired, but no way it'll be with pay.
So, if I "accused" you of being a serial killer who murdered midget hookers in order to harvest their body parts to sell to Moroccan Haberdasheries, you'd be fired immediately?
I think there's still a thing called due process in Canada and if you got fired before there was proof and a trial or mutual agreement you'd likely become a very rich man.
Rights my ass, FOG... pretty sure that at my job, I can get fired, but no way it'll be with pay.
So if I accused you of being a serial rapist who murdered hookers, you'd be fired immediately?
I think there's still a thing called due process in Canada and if you got fired before there was proof and a trial or mutual agreement you'd likely become a very rich man.
The presumption is that if they're cops they're guilty before they prove themselves innocent.
Being charged with a financial crime will lose you your job at every financial institution in the USA that I can think of.
Being charged with treason will lose you your job with any government agency in the USA.
Being charged with DUI will lose you your job driving vehicles for public transportation and trucking firms.
& etc.
Plenty of employers will fire people simply because they've been charged with a crime.
Being charged with a financial crime will lose you your job at every financial institution in the USA that I can think of.
Being charged with treason will lose you your job with any government agency in the USA.
Being charged with DUI will lose you your job driving vehicles for public transportation and trucking firms.
& etc.
But what if you're found not guilty? My guess is that you then get to sue the people who fired you without just cause?
I know that there were people in Vancouver who were fired after their actions and faces appeared in News video's of the Great Canadian Stanley Cup Riot but, with that being said I'm pretty sure that when they were fired they didn't fight it because of the obvious appearance of guilt.
Because, if they fought it they'd likely have been retained with pay just so the companies could keep the lawyers at bay till the court case was ended. Or maybe these peoples had signed a morals clause and they violated it.
But what if you're found not guilty? My guess is that you then get to sue the people who fired you without just cause?
That's a big misconception. To be fired, you don't need cause.
As long as the person is terminated 'without cause' and given the proper severance by law, the individual has no legal recourse. (non-unionized)
You can work for a company for 25 years and be terminated without cause and given 8 weeks pay as the maximum owed by law. (In Ontario)
Because in those jurisdictions the police force has THE OPTION. See how the title of the article I posted has the word OPTION in it?
And it's not employment law that's at issue here, It's Ontario's Police Services Act that requires they be suspended with pay and that's unique to Ontario. That's clearly explained in both articles on this thread and shouldn't have to be repeated to you so many times.