Discredit passages from 225 other decisions

### public-hearings/04-01_Clancy_Decision_Part_1.pdf
  * All officers admitted the disciplinary default of abuse of authority for the assaults and the further disciplinary default of discreditable conduct for their overall conduct.
  * Both of the Respondents admitted the discipline defaults of abuse of authority and discreditable conduct.
  * emmell, Steele, Kojima and Cronmiller admitted Count 2: Abuse of Authority for the assault of Grant Wilson; 3) Constables Kenney, Gardner, Gemmell, Steele, Kojima and Cronmiller admitted Count 3: Abuse of Authority for the assault of Jason Desjardins; 4) Constables Kenney, Gardner, Gemmell, Steele, Kojima and Cronmiller admitted Count 4: Discreditable Conduct for their overall conduct; and 5) Constable Gemmell admitted Count 5: Deceit for filing a false and misleading General Occurrence Report.
  * Both Constable Gemmell and Constable Kojima have admitted the disciplinary default of discreditable conduct for their overall conduct.
  * The Respondents do not therefore dispute that their conduct was discreditable.
  * The relevant portions of Section 4(1) of the Code provide: Disciplinary defaults 4(1) In this Code, "disciplinary default" means: (a) discreditable conduct, (c) deceit, (f) abuse of authority.
  * Wilson by Constable Kojima and unprofessional comments made by him under that subsection but it seems to me they fall more comfortably within the discipline default of discreditable conduct.
  * Discreditable Conduct Constable Gemmell and Constable Kojima are alleged to have committed the disciplinary default of discreditable conduct for their overall conduct.
  * rposes of Section 4(1)(a), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of discreditable conduct if (a) the police officer, while on duty, acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner that is (i) prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline in the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed, or (ii) likely to discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed, (b) the police officer's conduct, while on duty, is oppressive or abusive to any person.
  * Conclusions - Discreditable Conduct I conclude that in making the statements and threats attributed to him, Constable Kojima acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline in the VPD and in a manner likely to discredit the reputation of the force.
  * 38 I find further that in referring to what occurred to those who disclosed discreditable conduct of other officers, he was acting in an oppressive or abusive manner toward those officers.
  * Similarly, I find the conduct of Constable Gemmell in filing a false, misleading and inaccurate General Occurrence Report to be conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline within the VPD and likely to discredit the reputation of the force.
  * It is beyond question that the assaults in which the two constables participated amounted to discreditable conduct.
  * As well, I find that the failure to follow the breach policy was again discreditable and done with the knowledge that their actions could not have been authorized under the existing policy.
  * Conclusion The discipline defaults of abuse of authority, deceit and discreditable conduct have been admitted and established on the evidence.

### public-hearings/04-02_Clancy-Decision_Part_2.pdf
  * Both before the Chief Constable and before me, Constable Kojima admitted the default of abuse of authority for the assault of the Complainant Grant Wilson and the default of discreditable conduct for his overall conduct.
  * Before Chief Graham and again before me, Constable Gemmell admitted the additional discipline defaults of abuse of authority for the assault on the Complainants Jason Desjardins and Grant Wilson and discreditable conduct for his overall conduct.
  * hority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the police officer concerned takes precedence over one that seeks to blame and punish, unless the approach that should take precedence is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * rrective measures are necessary, the discipline authority must choose the least onerous disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to the police officer concerned unless one or both of the following would be undermined: (a) organizational effectiveness of the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed; (b) public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * It is however an aggravating factor to be taken into account in imposing appropriate measures for the assaults and for the default of discreditable conduct.
  * Somjen on behalf of the VPU agreed that the maintaining of public confidence required consistency of treatment.
  * Therefore before dismissal can be considered, it is necessary to decide whether the imposition of corrective or educational measures is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Similarly, if the measures adopted would not undermine organizational effectiveness or public confidence in the administration of police discipline, the least onerous measure must be adopted and dismissal would not be appropriate.
  * In Section 19(2), the phrase "into disrepute" must surely imply disrepute in the eyes of the public.
  * All counsel are agreed that an appropriate test for consideration of whether the administration of police discipline has been brought into disrepute and whether public confidence in the administration of police discipline has been undermined is an objective one.
  * There the Court was concerned with whether the admission of certain evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * In Collins and in many other authorities, the test considered was whether "in the eyes of a reasonable man, dispassionate and fully apprised of the circumstances of the case…" the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute.
  * Of more concern is whether such an approach would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Reasonable persons, including other officers, would find that course of action would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * It would lead to further diminishment of the reputation of the VPD and inevitably lead to the bringing of the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * If the prospects for reform are good, a reasonable person may find that police discipline would not be brought into disrepute or undermined.
  * Police discipline would be seen as inappropriate and ineffective and would be brought into disrepute.
  * The adoption of the least onerous corrective measures would be perceived by a reasonable person as undermining both the organizational effectiveness of the VPD and public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * That test emphasizes three factors, the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, the ability to reform or rehabilitate the officer and the damage to the reputation of the police force that would occur if the officer remained on force.
  * I have found his conduct to have been discreditable, which by definition is conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline or likely to discredit the reputation of the VPD (Code Section 5).
  * To paraphrase the philosophy of Commissioner Inkster, failure to demand a higher standard of conduct from police officers can lead to an erosion of public confidence in our police forces.
  * ie Lawrie and Jason Desjardins, his improper use of his police baton, his threats directed to Grant Wilson, his unprofessional comments to other officers, his failure to take notes, his failure to disclose the events to his superiors, his lack of honesty in testifying at this public hearing and his commission of the discipline default of discreditable conduct, for the assault of Grant Wilson, I order that Constable Kojima be dismissed from the Vancouver Police Department; 4.
  * Taking into account his assault of Grant Wilson and the other circumstances described, for the discipline default of discreditable conduct, I order that Constable Kojima be dismissed.

### public-hearings/10-03_Pitfield_Decision_Part_2-1.pdf
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### public-hearings/11014-2024-12-11-Notice-of-Public-Hearing.pdf
  * In the particular circumstances of this case, I believe a full and transparent accounting at a public hearing is required to preserve public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### public-hearings/11014-2025-01-02-Adjudicators-Ruling-on-s.-773b-Application.pdf
  * 4 from the judgment: On the findings here, it is plain that the use of a higher degree of moral culpability than would apply in the criminal context – namely, actual knowledge – was a sufficient but not [a] necessary basis for finding discreditable conduct.
  * 77(3)(b)): (3) Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (a) “abuse of authority”, which is oppressive conduct towards a member of the public, including, without limitation, […] (ii) in the performance, or purported performance, of duties, intentionally or recklessly A.

### public-hearings/11014-2025-12-10-Adjudicators-Ruling-on-Particularization-Application.pdf
  * Section 77(1)(b)(ii) of the Act defines “misconduct” to include conduct that constitutes “a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3)”.
  * f public trust, when committed by a member: (a) “abuse of authority”, which is oppressive conduct towards a member of the public, including without limitation, […] (ii) in the performance, or purported performance, of duties, intentionally or recklessly (A) Using unnecessary force on any person, […] (4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### public-hearings/11014-2026-02-19-IIO-Statement-Reasons.pdf
  * Assuming the IIO statements of Constables Folkestad, Sahota, and Thompson are relevant, a key purpose of this Public Hearing is to allow the best evidence to be presented and tested in a transparent way in order that the public confidence in the police and the administration of police discipline is maintained, or perhaps even enhanced.

### public-hearings/11300-2017-06-05-Notice-of-Public-Hearing.pdf
  * d cross-examine witnesses and receive evidence that was not part of the record at the discipline proceeding, in order to ensure that procedural fairness and accountability is maintained; d) There is a reasonable prospect that a Public Hearing will assist in determining the truth; and e) A Public Hearing is required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### public-hearings/11300-2018-04-08-Respondent-Counsel_Written-Submissions-on-Evidence_Redacted.pdf
  * ed is: Is an officer’s conducting any search outside the Charter parameters set by prevailing court decisions, ipso facto an offence under Count 1? [33] It cannot be the case that a Charter breach is ipso facto a disciplinary offence, because it would mean that mere errors in judgment or carelessness would inevitably rise to the level of discreditable conduct.
  * The Police Service Regulation Alta Reg 356/90, lists a lot of things that are discreditable conduct.
  * Police conduct which can be properly found as an “abuse of authority” is that exploitative conduct which, even after an examination of the factual context of a given - 23 case, cannot be viewed as consistent with a reasonable police officer’s good faith intention to lawfully perform his duties and uphold the public trust”.
  * Police conduct which can be properly found as an “abuse of authority” is that exploitative conduct which, even after an examination of the factual context of a given case, cannot be viewed as consistent with a reasonable police officer’s good faith intention to lawfully perform his duties and uphold the public trust.
  * The Board in that case stated that it was required to determine whether the Charter violation was likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force.
  * Police conduct which can be properly found as an “abuse of authority” is that exploitative conduct which, even after an examination of the factual context of a given case, cannot be viewed as consistent with a reasonable police officer’s good faith intention to lawfully perform his duties and uphold the public trust”.

### public-hearings/11300-2018-07-06-Respondent-Counsel_Written-Submissions_Discipline-Corrective-REDACTED_Redacted.pdf
  * Section 126 of the Police Act mandates that: (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipLine into disrepute.

### public-hearings/11300-2018-07-20_CC_Supplemental-Submissions_Discipline_Hobbs.pdf
  * (3)If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### public-hearings/11766-2018-04-10-Notice-of-Public-Hearing.pdf
  * d cross-examine witnesses and receive evidence that was not part of the record at the discipline proceeding, in order to ensure that procedural fairness and accountability is maintained; b) There is a reasonable prospect that a Public Hearing will assist in determining the truth; and c) A Public Hearing is required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### public-hearings/12-03_Pitfield_Decision_Part_1.pdf
  * [17] Section 77 (1) of the Police Act provides that “misconduct” means conduct that constitutes a public trust offence described in s.

### public-hearings/12-03_Pitfield_Decision_Part_2.pdf
  * hority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the police officer concerned takes precedence over one that seeks to blame and punish, unless the approach that should take precedence is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * authority must choose the least onerous In the Matter of Constable Adam Page Page 3 disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to the police officer concerned unless one or both of the following would be undermined: (a) organizational effectiveness of the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed; (b) [5] public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) is broad enough to require consideration of the effect of any sanction on organizational effectiveness and consideration of its effect on public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * ure unless organizational effectiveness or public confidence in the administration of police discipline would be undermined has been removed, the overriding principle under the Act remains the imposition of a sanction that corrects and educates the member unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Therefore, in the context of the abuse of authority by way of assault of a civilian, I must decide whether the imposition of a lesser sanction directed at correcting or educating the officer would undermine organizational effectiveness, or public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * If not, then a lesser sanction should be considered provided the sanction that is selected does not undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Similarly, there is nothing that deems any particular assault to undermine organizational effectiveness or public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Rather, as so well stated by Adjudicator Clancy In the Matter of Constables Gemmell and Kojima, PH 2004-01, the question to be considered is whether a reasonable man or woman aware of all the relevant circumstances would regard the omission to impose a sanction of dismissal in the circumstances of this assault would undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline, and whether, from the Abbotsford Police Department’s perspective the omission would undermine organizational effectiveness.
  * [10] I find that a reasonable member of the public would conclude that the failure to consider dismissal in the context of this default of abuse of authority by way of assault would not undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * At the same time, I find that a reasonable member of the public would conclude that anything less than a lengthy suspension would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute by failing to recognize the deleterious effect of deceit on the reasonable expectation that officers will act with integrity an honesty in their dealings with the public and their law enforcement agency.

### public-hearings/12210-2019-11-07-Media-Advisory-Public-Hearing.pdf
  * ca Page 2 November 7, 2019 OPCC 2016-12210 MEDIA ADVISORY PH: 2019-01 that a full public accounting of this matter under oath was necessary to both seek the truth and maintain public confidence in the Vancouver Police Department.

### public-hearings/13-02_Lazar_Decision_Part_2.pdf
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Section 126(3) provides that: If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes 7 precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * These cases and others like them have done much to destroy public confidence in the integrity of the police.
  * For these reasons I find that an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### public-hearings/13492-2018-09-18_Respondent-Officer-Submissions-on-Discipline_McIntyre.pdf
  * 2017-13492 In the Matter of the Public Hearing into the Conduct of Inspector John de Haas (#549) of the Vancouver Police Department Before: Adjudicator Carol Baird Ellan SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT, INSPECTOR JOHN DE HAAS Madam Adjudicator after hearing the evidence presented in the hearing found the member committed discreditable conduct (i) by removing Constable G's hands from her pockets without consent; (ii) by slapping her on the buttock at the same time; and (iii) by sending the email of June 9 to his fellow inspectors regarding the incident.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The offence was particularized as: That on April 4, 2017, Inspector de Haas, committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### public-hearings/17-01-2018-08-30_Adjudicators-Decision_Discipline-Redacted.pdf
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) of the Police Act provides that an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * (19) It is submitted that where an officer acts outside of these professional duties and responsibilities, disciplinary and corrective measures can be used to restore public trust.
  * (20) Counsel submits that disciplinary measures that do not reflect the seriousness of misconduct, may undermine, rather than restore, public confidence that may have been lost as result of police misconduct.
  * ) of the Police Act which, noted above, provides as follows: (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 13 (48) The seriousness of member misconduct has a direct correlation to public confidence in policing and the police discipline process.
  * IX Analysis (87) Section 126(3) of the Police Act provides that if I consider that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, I should prioritize an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Corrective measures alone cannot be the priority because doing so would, I find, bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### public-hearings/17-01-Adjudicator-Decision-on-Request-for-Recusal-Part-2.pdf
  * Supreme Court: section 142 Police Act; (d) In discharging the Commissioner’s many duties set out under the Police Act, a key responsibility of the Commissioner is to ensure public confidence in matters of police discipline: Florkow supra, para 2.

### public-hearings/17245-2023-10-04-Notice-of-Public-Hearing.pdf
  * A Public Hearing is therefore required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### public-hearings/2014-02_2014_05_14-Notice-of-Public-Hearing.pdf
  * d cross-examine witnesses and receive evidence that was not part of the record at the Discipline Proceeding, in order to ensure that procedural fairness and accountability is maintained; d) There is a reasonable prospect that a public hearing will assist in determining the truth; and e) A public hearing is required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### public-hearings/2014-02_Adjudicator_Baird_Ellan_Decision.pdf
  * Tiwana testified at the disciplinary hearing; 3) a public hearing would assist in ascertaining the truth; and 4) a public hearing was required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### public-hearings/2016-12210-2019-11-07-Notice-of-Public-Hearing.pdf
  * He further stated that the police officers’ conduct has undermined public confidence in the police as they intentionally used excessive force during this incident.
  * ve evidence that was not part of the record at the Discipline Proceeding in order to ensure a complete accounting of the events and to allow for the credibility of all parties to be fully assessed; e) There is a reasonable prospect that a Public Hearing will assist in determining the truth; and f) A Public Hearing is required to preserve public confidence in the Vancouver Police Department.

### public-hearings/2018-09-17-Submissions-of-the-OPCC.pdf
  * In the circumstances of this case, an approach focused on correction or education is not workable or appropriate, and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * If the adjudicator considers that disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member takes precedence unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute (s.
  * 77(3)(h) of the Police Act in physically disciplining the Complainant by removing her hands from her pockets, and also by smacking or slapping her on the buttocks, which he knew or ought to have known would likely bring discredit on his department (Decision, para.
  * 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by disseminating an email in which he identified and contradicted the Complainant when he knew there was a Police Act investigation pertaining to her complaint, which he knew or ought to have known would likely bring discredit on his department.
  * An approach that is aimed at correction and education would bring the administration of 7 justice into disrepute.
  * The public has a right to expect and demand integrity from police officers, which ensures public confidence in Appendix A, Ottawa Police Service, Sir Robert Peel’s Principles of Law Enforcement, 1829, Available on-line: https://www.
  * Moreover, the fulcrum for Police Act misconduct is conduct that would bring disrepute to the police in the eyes of the public.
  * In all of the circumstances, the Commissioner submits that an approach aimed at education and correcting the Member is unworkable, and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

### public-hearings/20959-2025-06-26-Notice-of-Public-Hearing.pdf
  * In February of 2023, a police discipline authority found that the Members appeared to have committed discreditable conduct under the Police Act (the “Act”) by actively participating in the Group Chat and sharing racist, sexist, or other discriminatory or inappropriate content.
  * Delays in addressing alleged violations of these standards can erode public trust.
  * In this case, ending the discipline proceeding and calling a public hearing is necessary to ensure that important allegations of misconduct and associated constitutional issues are resolved in a timely manner that preserves public confidence in the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 3 June 26, 2025 OPCC 2021-20959 PH 2025-01 administration of police discipline and provides needed legal clarity to municipal police officers across the province.
  * 93 of the Act that the Vancouver Police Department (“VPD”) conduct an external investigation into whether members of the NPD had committed misconduct in relation to the Group Chat, which could potentially be defined as discreditable conduct contrary to s.
  * 112 of the Act that each of the Members appeared to have committed discreditable conduct by actively participating in the Group Chat and sharing inappropriate material and comments.
  * I have decided a public hearing is necessary in this case for the following reasons: a) The misconduct allegations raise serious issues that go to the heart of public trust in policing.
  * Such conduct may be likely to bring a police department into disrepute in the opinion of a reasonable member of the public.
  * 025 OPCC 2021-20959 PH 2025-01 now to a public hearing will allow an adjudicator to provide important guidance on critical questions, including the extent to which police officers can expect to maintain privacy over such communications, and whether or in what circumstances participation in a closed group chat may be work-related or bring discredit to a department.
  * In sending this matter to a public hearing, I aim to ensure the allegations of misconduct and related legal issues can be fairly resolved in the fastest way possible to restore operational clarity and preserve public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * In my view, the public hearing should consider the following allegations: a) That Sergeant Holt, Detective Constable Hannah, Constable Sutherland, and former Constables Anstey, Armstrong and Slomba, committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to s.

### public-hearings/20959-2025-11-20-Adjudicators-Ruling-on-Standing_Participant-Status.pdf
  * Three current members and three former members of the Nelson Police Department (“Nelson PD”) face allegations of Discreditable Conduct and Neglect of Duty.
  * 112 of the Police Act, that the Members appeared to have committed Discreditable Conduct and Neglect of Duty.
  * 1) of the Police Act, issued a Notice of Public Hearing directing that the following allegations be considered: (a) That Sergeant Holt, Detective Constable Hannah, Constable Sutherland, and former Constables Anstey, Armstrong and Slomba, committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to s.

### public-hearings/20959-2026-01-07-Adjudicators-Ruling-on-Application-for-Disclosure.pdf
  * Three current members and three former members of the Nelson Police Department (“Nelson PD”) face allegations of Discreditable Conduct and Neglect of Duty.

### public-hearings/20959-2026-01-07-Adjudicators-Ruling-on-Standing_Participant-Status-VPD.pdf
  * The Chief Constable of the Vancouver Police Department (“VPD”) applied for participant status in the matter of the members of the Nelson Police Department (“Nelson PD”) who are facing allegations of discreditable conduct and neglect of duty arising from the use of inappropriate language in a WhatsApp chat group.

### public-hearings/7819-2014-11-19-Ruling-on-Commission-Counsel.pdf
  * He submits that, as discussed above, his participation is necessary in order for the Commissioner to ensure that his duties under the Act are fulfilled, in particular his duty under section 143(1)(b) to act to “preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct or the administration of police discipline.
  * He says his role will necessarily be separate from that of public hearing counsel, which is simply to present the case relative to the allegations and not necessarily to ensure that public confidence is maintained.

### public-hearings/8138_2017-06-15_Notice_of_Public_Hearing.pdf
  * Discipline Authority Pitfield added that “a different result may have ensued had these allegations of misconduct been framed as Discreditable Conduct.
  * In this case, I consider the alleged misconduct involves a significant breach of public trust and that the harm suffered by Mr.
  * Returning to the section 132(2) factors, I consider the conduct at issue, if not subjected to a Public Hearing, would likely undermine public confidence in “the police, the handling of complaints or the disciplinary process” and that a hearing is required in order to restore that public confidence.

### public-hearings/BC_Court_of_Appeal_re_Florkow_London_PH-1.pdf
  * British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner) Page 5 will be necessary to complete a review of the disciplinary decision on a standard of correctness and do the things described in section 141 (10); (b) in the police complaint commissioner's opinion, a public hearing of the matter under this section is required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct or the administration of police discipline.
  * 141 “instead of a public hearing” if he or she is satisfied that it is unnecessary to examine or cross-examine witnesses or receive new evidence and that a public hearing is not required “to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * (b) [10] in the [PCC’s] opinion, a public hearing of the matter under this section is required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct or the administration of police discipline.
  * British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner) Page 13 Having reviewed the investigation and determinations to date, pursuant to section 143(1)(b) of the Police Act, I have determined that a public hearing in this matter is required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * In arriving at this determination I have considered several relevant factors including but not limited to the following: (a) The complaint is serious in nature as the alleged misconduct involves a significant breach of public trust.
  * The discretionary authority exists with the Police Complaint Commissioner, and the test is set out in 143(1)(b) where the commissioner comes to the view that it is necessary to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct.
  * In my view, neither alternative provides an effective safeguard against the potential that the discipline authority may reach the wrong conclusion and find a public trust complaint unsubstantiated when there is a reasonable basis in the final investigation report for concluding that it should have been concluded as substantiated.
  * To begin with, the public interest test is too high a threshold to permit rectification of error by that means in any but the most egregious of public trust defaults.
  * ) He continued: From the way Part IX is presently structured, a proposed disposition of a public trust complaint, whether under s.
  * While both the complainant and respondent must request a public hearing within 30 days of certain triggering events, all of which are temporally close to the disposition of a public trust complaint, there is no time limit on the police complaint commissioner’s decision whether to respond to such a request by ordering a public hearing, and in particular, no time limit within which he must decide on his own motion whether to make such an order.
  * In my view any decision to order either a public review or a public hearing, whether prompted by a request from either the complainant or the respondent, or made on his own motion, should be made by the police complaint commissioner within 60 days of the proposed disposition of a public trust complaint under ss.

### public-hearings/OPCC-Kirkwood-Adjudictors-Decision.pdf
  * Section 126(3) requires that an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member takes precedence unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### public-hearings/PH-2013-06_Constable_Gibbons_Submissions_Part_1.pdf
  * ary measures in the Police Act is set out in section 126(3): (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### public-hearings/PH-2018-02-Respondent-Submission.pdf
  * ed is: Is an officer’s conducting any search outside the Charter parameters set by prevailing court decisions, ipso facto an offence under Count 1? [33] It cannot be the case that a Charter breach is ipso facto a disciplinary offence, because it would mean that mere errors in judgment or carelessness would inevitably rise to the level of discreditable conduct.
  * The Police Service Regulation Alta Reg 356/90, lists a lot of things that are discreditable conduct.
  * Police conduct which can be properly found as an “abuse of authority” is that exploitative conduct which, even after an examination of the factual context of a given case, cannot be viewed as consistent with a reasonable police officer’s good faith intention to lawfully perform his duties and uphold the public trust”.
  * Police conduct which can be properly found as an “abuse of authority” is that exploitative conduct which, even after an examination of the factual context of a given case, cannot be viewed as consistent with a reasonable police officer’s good faith intention to lawfully perform his duties and uphold the public trust.
  * The Board in that case stated that it was required to determine whether the Charter violation was likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force.
  * Police conduct which can be properly found as an “abuse of authority” is that exploitative conduct which, even after an examination of the factual context of a given case, cannot be viewed as consistent with a reasonable police officer’s - 35 good faith intention to lawfully perform his duties and uphold the public trust”.

### public-hearings/PH13-05_2014-11-28_Adjudicator_Decision.pdf
  * r cross-examine witnesses and receive evidence that was not part of the record at the discipline proceeding, in order to ensure that procedural fairness and accountability is maintained; d) There is a reasonable prospect that a public hearing will assist in determining the truth; and e) A public hearing is required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### public-hearings/PH18-01-Adjudicator-Ruling-on-Resp-Request-for-Witnesses.pdf
  * 367 AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC HEARING INTO AN ALLEGATION AGAINST INSPECTOR JOHN DE HAAS OF THE VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT ADJUDICATOR’S DECISION ON REQUEST FOR WITNESS SUMMONSES Introduction [1] Inspector De Haas (the member) faces a single allegation of discreditable conduct arising from an alleged interaction with a female Special Constable in April of 2017.
  * He points to the wording of Section 142(b) which specifies as one of the criteria for the Police Complaint Commissioner to order a public hearing, the following: (b) in the police complaint commissioner’s opinion, a public hearing of the matter under this section is required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct or the administration of police discipline.
  * Much has been written about the reasons behind the process provided for in the ​Act​, to create a public trust aspect to proceedings and remove the cloak of secrecy from internal processes.

### public-hearings/PH2013-02_Notice_of_Public_Hearing.pdf
  * During the course of the investigations further allegations of misconduct were added pursuant to the Police Act in relation to Constable Jansen’s actions including Abuse of Authority, Deceit and Discreditable Conduct.
  * MacDonald, as Disciplinary Authority, issued his Notice of Discipline Authority’s Decision in which he determined that the evidence appeared to substantiate two allegations of Abuse of Authority, five allegations of Deceit and an allegation of Discreditable Conduct against Constable Jansen pursuant to the Police Act, the matter was directed to a discipline proceeding.
  * On April 11, 2013, in concluding the discipline proceeding, Discipline Authority Inspector MacDonald, determined that the allegations of Deceit, Discreditable Conduct and only one of the allegations of Abuse of Authority had been proven by the available evidence and imposed the following disciplinary and corrective measures: i.
  * In addition, I am of the view that a public hearing is required to provide the necessary transparency and accountability, to preserve public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * g) Discreditable Conduct – contrary to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, Constable Jansen committed the disciplinary default of Discreditable Conduct, when he used unnecessary force on Mr.
  * Booker at Surrey Memorial Hospital on April 22, 2010, and conducted himself in a manner that he knew or ought to have known would bring discredit on the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Police Service.

### public-hearings/PH2014-01_Notice_of_Public_Hearing.pdf
  * that was not part of the record at the Discipline Proceeding, in order to ensure that procedural fairness and accountability is maintained; c) there is a reasonable prospect that a public hearing will assist in determining the truth; and d) a public hearing is required to provide the necessary transparency and accountability to preserve public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### public-hearings/Public-Hearings-General-Information.pdf
  * Misconduct Conduct as defined by Division 2 of Part 11 of the Police Act, which constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust when committed by a member.
  * If the Adjudicator considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### reviews-on-the-record/11200_2016-10-26_Notice_of_Review_on_the_Record.pdf
  * On April 1, 2016, following his review of the FIR, the Discipline Authority notified Corporal McLaughlin that a Discipline Proceeding would be held in relation to the substantiated allegations, namely: 1) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Specifically, it is alleged that Corporal McLaughlin committed the misconduct of discreditable conduct when off duty she drove her personal vehicle while her ability was impaired by alcohol in contravention of the BC Motor Vehicle Act.
  * 2) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Specifically, it is alleged that Corporal McLaughlin committed the misconduct of discreditable conduct when off duty she identified herself as a police officer to the officer conducting an impaired driving investigation and asked for preferential treatment.
  * On August 8, 2016, following the Discipline Proceeding, and on September 21, 2016, following the Discipline Disposition Record, after considering the available evidence and submissions, the Discipline Authority made the following determinations in relation to the allegations: 1) That Corporal McLaughlin committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Specifically, it is alleged that Corporal McLaughlin committed the misconduct of discreditable conduct when she failed to pass the Approved Screening Device test for alcohol consumption on October 11, 2015.
  * 2) That Corporal McLaughlin committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Specifically, it is alleged that Corporal McLaughlin committed the misconduct of discreditable conduct when off duty she identified herself as a police officer to the officer conducting an impaired driving investigation and asked for preferential treatment.
  * The Discipline Authority made the following findings with respect to proposed discipline: Allegation #1: Discreditable Conduct: Dismissal.
  * It is, therefore, alleged that Corporal McLaughlin committed the following disciplinary defaults, pursuant to section 77 of the Police Act: 1) That Corporal McLaughlin committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Specifically, it is alleged that Corporal McLaughlin committed the misconduct of discreditable conduct when she failed to pass the Approved Screening Device test for alcohol consumption on October 11, 2015.
  * 2) That Corporal McLaughlin committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Specifically, it is alleged that Corporal McLaughlin committed the misconduct of discreditable conduct when off duty she identified herself as a police officer to the officer conducting an impaired driving investigation and asked for preferential treatment.

### reviews-on-the-record/11200_2016-12-19_Adjudicator_Decision-2.pdf
  * That Corporal McLaughlin committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Specifically, it is alleged that Corporal McLaughlin committed the misconduct Decision of the Adjudicator, OPCC File: 2015-11200 2 of discreditable conduct when she failed to pass the Approved Screening Device test for alcohol consumption on October 11, 2015.
  * That Corporal McLaughlin committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Specifically, it is alleged that Corporal McLaughlin committed the misconduct of discreditable conduct when off duty she identified herself as a police officer to the officer conducting an impaired driving investigation and asked for preferential treatment.
  * [12] Prior cases referred to by counsel have established that the mere act of identifying oneself as an officer while being investigated is not discreditable conduct if there is a reasonable explanation other than the seeking of favour.
  * The definition of discreditable conduct in Section 77(3)(h) is “conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * The question is outward perception, and what the officer “knows, or ought to know” will likely discredit her department.
  * That Section provides: (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * [42] Chief Goerke gave careful consideration to the terms of Section 126(3) and in particular whether a supervised return to work would either be unworkable or bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### reviews-on-the-record/11249-2018-06-06-Young-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record-Ordered.pdf
  * It was determined that the conduct alleged against Constable Young, if substantiated, would constitute misconduct: a) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * b) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * c) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Based on the information received, this conduct, if substantiated, could constitute misconduct, specifically: a) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * b) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * c) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * d) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * e) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 4 June 6, 2018 OPCC 2015-11249 f) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * g) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * h) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * On January 26, 2017, following his review of the FIR, Chief Constable Len Goerke, as the Discipline Authority substantiated the eleven allegations of Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * Based on the totality of the evidence for the 11 allegations of Discreditable Conduct for falsifying a prescription for medication and lying to members of the RCMP during a criminal investigation, Chief Constable Goerke set out a proposed range of discipline from close supervision to dismissal.
  * ble evidence and submissions, Chief Constable Goerke made the following determinations in relation to the allegations: Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 5 June 6, 2018 OPCC 2015-11249 (i) That from April 3, 2015 to November 8, 2015 Constable Geoffrey Young, committed eleven disciplinary defaults of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know , would be likely to bring discredit on a Municipal Police Department.
  * In arriving at these disciplinary measures, Chief Constable Goerke found that Constable Young’s addiction to hydromorphone was a significant mitigating factor to the Discreditable Conduct of altering prescriptions.
  * Further, I’m satisfied that a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * It is therefore alleged that Constable Young committed the following disciplinary default, pursuant to section 77 of the Police Act: a) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 8 June 6, 2018 OPCC 2015-11249 b) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * c) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * d) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * e) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * f) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * g) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * h) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 9 June 6, 2018 OPCC 2015-11249 i) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * j) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * k) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### reviews-on-the-record/11249-2018-09-05-Submissions-of-member-re-141-4-.pdf
  * The Discipline Authority found the member to have committed the misconduct of discreditable conduct by altering prescriptions for hydromorphone, and when he was asked by RCMP officers whether he had tried to use an altered prescription, he was not truthful.

### reviews-on-the-record/11249-2018-09-10-Commission-counsel-submissions-on-application-for-additional-evidence-10-September-2018.pdf
  * (These include the need for additional evidence beyond the record, and the need for a public hearing “to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct or the administration of police discipline”.

### reviews-on-the-record/11249-2018-09-24-Young-Submission-RoR-redacted-for-OPCC-website_Redacted.pdf
  * 4 The Commissioner’s Policy Toward Addicted Police Officers Would Bring Administration of Police Discipline Into Disrepute .
  * There are only two exceptions when punishment may take precedence: when an approach that emphasizes correction and education is unworkable; or when such an approach would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The Commissioner does not provide any argument on why the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed by the Discipline Authority would be unworkable, nor does he consider whether those disciplinary or corrective measures (or indeed, his own proposed punishment) would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * It will be argued that the Discipline Authority’s disciplinary or corrective measures would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, but are instead consistent with the approach taken in publicly supported programs including, for example, drug courts and safe injection sites.
  * To the contrary, the punishment proposed by the Commissioner would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute by adopting unenlightened and retrograde policies that have been discarded as unreasonable, costly, dangerous, and lacking in compassion.
  * The “data” that the drug companies bandied about was based on a single, now-discredited letter that had been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
  * 126(3): (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, [1] an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless [2] it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * e that correction and education must precedence over punishment; or the second principle that measures other than those directed to education and correction may be considered only - 28 where correction and education are “unworkable”, or giving precedence to correction and education would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3), measures other than those that seek to educate and correct may be imposed only if correction and education would be unworkable, or such measures would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 4 THE COMMISSIONER’S POLICY TOWARD ADDICTED POLICE OFFICERS WOULD BRING ADMINISTRATION OF POLICE DISCIPLINE INTO DISREPUTE 166.
  * The second exception that would justify an Adjudicator in imposing measures other than those directed to education and correction is where such measures would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 24(2) asks whether a reasonable person informed of all the relevant circumstances, would consider that admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * sponses to opioid addiction have identified the obstacles that social stigma erects before addicted persons and those seeking to assist them: Stigma involves processes of labeling, stereotyping, social rejection, exclusion, and extrusion as well as the internalization of community attitudes in the form of shame by the person/family being discredited.
  * Such a person may conclude that usurping the power to punish supposedly criminal conduct would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Such a person would consider that so hypocritical a policy would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The theft of drugs by a nurse or doctor strikes closely to the heart of public confidence in the medical system, because it is a violation of the prescription system that the medical community is entrusted to administer.
  * Yet, the regulators of the medical professions do not see treating diversion of drugs as an illness rather than as misconduct as something that would bring discredit upon their profession.
  * (b) The statement of purpose and principle gives precedence to education and correction, except where doing so would be unworkable or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * (e) A reasonable, well-informed person would not consider that the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed by the Discipline Authority would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * It is therefore submitted that the decision in should be seen as the upper limit for cases of discreditable conduct where a person commits a regulatory infraction, and then briefly covers it up with a misstatement.
  * Third, in Thandi there was no legal discussion whatever of the elements of the misconduct of discreditable conduct.
  * The retired judge never asked the question whether a reasonable, well informed member of the community would consider that the conduct of the subject member in that case brought discredit upon the municipal police department.

### reviews-on-the-record/11249-2018-10-01-Commission-counsel-reply-submissions-on-discipline.pdf
  * It involves broader questions as to the public interest and public confidence in the police disciplinary system.
  * But that discipline was, in our submission, so wholly lacking in severity as to undermine public confidence in police discipline in the province.

### reviews-on-the-record/12506-2018-07-12-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * Woodall is of the view that an Adjudicator should hear the testimony of the motorists who received tickets from Constable Ritchie to determine what the motorists were doing, whether they were deceived by the ticket, whether their interaction brought discredit upon the policing profession, and whether the interactions served the larger purpose of enforcing the law.
  * Furthermore, I am satisfied that a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/13291-2018-07-16-Counsel-for-SMC-Keith_McKnight.pdf
  * At both the Pre Hearing Conference and Discipline Proceeding SMC Keith admitted the allegation of operating or having care or control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, constituting discreditable conduct.
  * The prospect of rehabilitation also forms part of the analysis of whether the administration of police discipline would fall into disrepute, which is always a consideration related to penalty.
  * If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute: S.

### reviews-on-the-record/13291-2018-08-09-Adjudicator-Decision_SMC-Keith.pdf
  * (2) Taking the foregoing facts into consideration, the Former Discipline Authority determined that on March 24, 2017 the Member committed the Disciplinary Default of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to s.
  * That section provides that discreditable conduct occurs when members, on or off duty, conduct themselves in a manner that they know, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on a municipal police department.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) of the Police Act provides that an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * (24) In summary, Counsel for the Commissioner submits that corrective measures alone would be unworkable and bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * IV Submissions of Counsel for the Member (25) The Member admits that her conduct constituted discreditable conduct and fully acknowledges the importance of deterring impaired driving.
  * 126(3) requires prioritization of rehabilitative measures unless such sanctions are unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 17 (93) I find that as a matter of sound public policy, all members, including SMCs, must be held to a high standard of conduct to preserve public confidence in policing.
  * 126(3) provides that ill consider that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, I should prioritize an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * (105) I find that the imposition of corrective measures alone would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute by effectively minimizing the seriousness of the impaired driving misconduct.

### reviews-on-the-record/13965-2020-10-02-Website-Notice.pdf
  * MPLAINT COMMISSIONER British Columbia, Canada NOTICE October 2, 2020 OPCC file: 2017-13965 RR: 2020-04 Date for oral submissions in Review on the Record Victoria - The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner wishes to advise that oral submissions for the review into the findings of a discipline proceeding relating to an allegation of discreditable conduct against Constable Neil Logan of the Vancouver Police Department, will be held on Tuesday, October 6, 2020, beginning at 9:30 am.

### reviews-on-the-record/14249-2019-03-14-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record_Ordered_Redacted.pdf
  * Regarding aggravating circumstances, Superintendent Davey, in part, determined that a use of police databases is unacceptable in policy and law, and can erode public trust in police.
  * I am of the respectful view that an approach that seeks Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 5 March 14, 2019 OPCC 2017-14249 to educate is unworkable and would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, pursuant to section 126(3) of the Police Act because the evidence was clear that committed the misconduct in question despite his awareness that his actions would contravene the law and VPD policy.
  * the conduct has undermined, or would be likely to undermine, the public confidence in the police, the handling of complaints or the disciplinary process; and iv.
  * I am also of the view that a written reprimand would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Further, I’m satisfied that a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/14260-2019-01-31-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * On August 15, 2018, following his review of the FIR, Inspector Jeff Danroth, as the Discipline Authority substantiated two allegations of Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * An agreement was reached in which Constable McCluskie admitted to the misconducts of Discreditable Conduct and agreed to the imposition of a four day suspension without pay for registering a fail on the ASD and a one day suspension without pay for attempting to obtain special consideration.
  * On December 21, 2018, following the discipline proceeding, and after considering the available evidence and submissions, the Discipline Authority made the following determinations in relation to the allegations: (i) That on December 24, 2017, Constable Tyler McCluskie, committed the disciplinary default of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on a Municipal Police Department.
  * (ii) That on December 24, 2017, Constable Tyler McCluskie, committed the disciplinary default of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on a Municipal Police Department.
  * In determining that a Review on the Record is necessary in the public interest, I have considered several relevant factors, including but not limited to the following: a) The complaint is serious in nature as the allegations involve a significant breach of the public trust; b) The conduct has undermined, or would be likely to undermine, public confidence in the police, the handling of complaints, or the disciplinary process; c) The disciplinary or corrective measures proposed are inappropriate or inadequate.
  * Further, I’m satisfied that a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * It is therefore alleged that Constable McCluskie committed the following disciplinary default, pursuant to section 77 of the Police Act: (i) That on December 24, 2017, Constable McCluskie, committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * (ii) That on December 24, 2017, Constable McCluskie, committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### reviews-on-the-record/14260-2019-05-17-McCluskie-ROR-Reasons.pdf-May-28_Redacted-FINAL.pdf
  * 367 ordered by the Police Complaint Commissioner on January 31, 2019, relating to two allegations of discreditable conduct under Part 11 of the Act on the part of Constable Tyler McCluskie of the Vancouver Police Department.
  * Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would bring discredit on the municipal police department, specifically, driving while impaired.
  * Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would bring discredit on the municipal police department, specifically, for his behavior during the Delta Police investigation, which included attempting to obtain special consideration based on being an off-duty police officer.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * That report was reviewed by discipline authority Inspector Jeff Danroth of the Vancouver Police Department Professional Standards Section and on August 15, 2018 he issued a Notice of Discipline Authority’s Decision under Section 112, confirming the two allegations of discreditable conduct.
  * 3 An approach that seeks to correct and educate the member should take precedence in this case, because it is not unworkable, and would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Hickford submits that in emphasizing an approach that corrected and educated the member, the Discipline Authority failed to consider adequately whether a 3day suspension would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * [41] In considering the relative expertise of the Board and the presiding officer on an issue of penalty, the court stated: [28] In some instances, the operation of the police service, public safety and public confidence may not be compromised by the conduct in question, and the presiding officer may choose to impose a punishment which allows the offending officer to continue his duties with the service.
  * Although the Board acquires experience in discipline issues through the hearing process, its members are not involved in the day-to-day issues of discipline, safety and public confidence that face the chief.
  * [43] Under the BC legislation, the matter of relative expertise may be engaged in connection with assessments of whether conduct may be considered discreditable under Section 77(3)(h).
  * itionally emphasized the role of [the] “reasonable person” in assessing what will likely bring discredit, there is a recent and very useful Federal Court judgment (Elhatton v Canada (Attorney General) 2013 FC 71) that emphasizes the importance of a Chief Constable’s opinion in assessing the extent to which particular behavior will likely discredit the reputation of the police force.
  * [44] I note that the question of whether the discipline authority has applied Section 126(3) incorrectly entails a consideration of whether the recommended penalty might bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute; arguably a similar question to the issue of whether conduct is discreditable from a public perspective.
  * es as an important aim the external oversight of internal police disciplinary processes, the issue of whether a proposed penalty emphasizing correction and education as prescribed by Section 126(3) Review on the Record, Constable McCluskie, Vancouver Police Department 18 might be said to bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, in relation to the public perception of the penalty, is an area in which an adjudicator might be equally or better equipped to make the assessment.
  * a penalty that is outside the range might arguably bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, but one within the range arguably would not.
  * [72] It must be noted that Constable McCluskie’s behaviour goes way further than the simple “badging” that occurs in many of the cases, in itself an act of discreditable conduct.
  * to take a penalty outside the otherwise applicable range, and whether a decision to reduce a penalty below that range, Review on the Record, Constable McCluskie, Vancouver Police Department 30 in order to emphasize education and correction efforts already undertaken by the officer might bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Did the Discipline Authority Apply Section 126(2)(g) Incorrectly? [89] My view is that how the penalty compares with those imposed in similar cases is one of the primary factors bearing on the later issue under Section 126(3) of whether a penalty brings the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * McCluskie takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * I also acknowledge the need for the disposition of this matter to ensure public confidence in a high standard of conduct by the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the maintenance of professional discipline in the VPD and the fair treatment of Cst.
  * ation of Section 126(3) under the applicable standard of review is in my view whether imposing a penalty that might otherwise be below the defined range, in order to recognize and encourage Review on the Record, Constable McCluskie, Vancouver Police Department 32 , might be considered to bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The officer was charged criminally and also faced allegations of discreditable conduct.
  * 265, the court set forth the standard which should be applied when trying to determine whether a decision will bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * said: Since the concept of disrepute involves some element of community views, the test should be put figuratively in terms of the reasonable Review on the Record, Constable McCluskie, Vancouver Police Department 33 person: would the admission of the evidence bring the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the reasonable person, dispassionate and fully apprised of the circumstances of the case.
  * [107] Having objectively considered the allegation of seeking preferential treatment within the context of the circumstances in which Constable McCluskie found himself on the date of the incident, , I am unable to conclude that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * [108] While mindful of my role as adjudicator in relation to Section 126(3), of ensuring that the public interest is represented by an objective consideration of matters that have to this point been considered internally, I am of the view that a finding that a proposed penalty would bring the administration of policing into disrepute should not be made lightly where experienced and senior officers have brought their judgement to bear on the matter and decided that a suspension at the lower end of the range will suffice.

### reviews-on-the-record/14263-2020-01-27-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 3 January 27, 2020 OPCC 2017-14263 4) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows or ought to know would likely bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * I have reviewed the record of the disciplinary decision, and the associated determinations, pursuant to section 138 of the Police Act, and I have decided that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether misconduct has been proven with regard to Abuse of Authority, Discreditable Conduct, and Deceit are incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act.
  * I have further determined that Superintendent Eely erred when he determined that SMC Mann did not commit Discreditable Conduct because he had no intent to delete the video, rather that he received it in a primed state and hitting a single button could delete it accidentally.
  * Further, a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * That on November 12, 2017, Special Municipal Constable Rajdeep Mann, committed the disciplinary default of Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### reviews-on-the-record/14493-2020-05-28-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * isfied, in the circumstances, that it is unnecessary to do either of the following: examine or cross-examine witnesses; receive evidence that is not part of the record of the disciplinary decision described in section 141(3) or the service record of the member or former member, and; a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * While I acknowledge the member takes issue with the interpretation of the evidence by the Discipline Authority, a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/14638-2019-04-09-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record-Ordered.pdf
  * Further, a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/15-02_-2015-11-28_Notice_ROTR.pdf
  * Furthermore, I am satisfied that a public hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/15996-2020-05-14-Redacted_Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * On the basis of the information provided, the OPCC identified two potential allegations of Discreditable Conduct.
  * On December 3, 2019, following his review of the FIR, the Discipline Authority notified Constable Meyer that a Discipline Proceeding would be held in relation to the substantiated allegation, namely: Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal department.
  * blic Hearing, but may arrange a Review on the Record instead of a Public Hearing if satisfied that it is unnecessary to either examine or cross-examine witnesses, or receive evidence that is not part of the record of the disciplinary decision or the service record of the member, and a public hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * Based on the limited scope of this review as outlined herein, I am therefore satisfied that it is not necessary to cross examine witnesses or receive new evidence, and that a public hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/15996-2020-12-11-Adjudicator-Lazar-Decision.pdf
  * Clayton Pecknold, Police Complaint Commissioner Background: On May 14th, 2020 the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a review on the record limited to the disciplinary and corrective measures that had been imposed on Constable Meyer as a result of a finding that he had committed discreditable conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal department.
  * The member received specified counselling and a written reprimand for discreditable conduct.
  * Section 126(3) of the Act provides that if the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 265 sets forth the standard which should be applied when trying to determine whether a decision will bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * It is equally applicable to the question of whether a given disposition will bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * said: Since the concept of disrepute involves some element of community views, the test should be put figuratively in terms of the reasonable person: would the admission of the evidence bring the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the reasonable person, dispassionate and fully apprised of the circumstances of the case.

### reviews-on-the-record/16234-2024-01-22-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record-1.pdf
  * On October 14, 2020, following her review of the FIR, the Discipline Authority notified the Member that a Discipline Proceeding would be held in relation to the substantiated allegations, namely that the Member was alleged to have committed two counts of Discreditable Conduct with respect to his comments and behaviour towards NWPD employees.
  * On November 8, 2023, following the Discipline Proceeding, and after considering the available evidence and submissions, the Discipline Authority made the following determinations in relation to the allegations: (i) That the Member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act with respect to the comments and behaviour directed at a NWPD [employee].
  * Proposed Disciplinary Measure – Reduction in Rank (ii) That the Member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act with respect to the comments and behaviour directed at NWPD [employees.
  * ” This has the potential to bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute as contemplated by section 126(3).
  * Accordingly, I have a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority has incorrectly applied section 126 by adopting an approach that does not sufficiently consider its workability and whether such an approach would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * It is therefore alleged that the Member committed the following disciplinary default, pursuant to section 77 of the Police Act: (i) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * (ii) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### reviews-on-the-record/16234-2024-04-19-Adjudicators-Ruling-on-Application-of-Chief-Constable.pdf
  * 367 AND IN THE MATTER OF A REVIEW ON THE RECORD OF DISCIPLINARY OR CORRECTIVE MEASURES IN RELATION TO ALLEGATIONS OF DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT AGAINST A MEMBER OF THE NEW WESTMINSTER POLICE DEPARTMENT RULING ON AN APPLICATION 1.

### reviews-on-the-record/17317-2026-01-28-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * These are worthwhile objectives, which, in my view, are consistent with the purposes of the Police Act to protect public confidence in police and police oversight.
  * ” The evidence that the Apology Order has not addressed the relational damage and impact on public trust caused by the misconduct and instead may have contributed to further harm is also substantial and material to the appropriateness of the Order.
  * Given the seriousness of the underlying misconduct, the lingering unresolved issues regarding the Apology Order are likely to undermine public confidence in police, particularly for the Applicants and the Heiltsuk community specifically, and Indigenous persons generally.
  * In the circumstances, a public hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/18-02-2018-10-12-Ajudicator-Discipline.pdf
  * a) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * ) b) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * c) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * d) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * e) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * f) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * g) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * h) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * i) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * j) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * k) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Section 126 (3) provides that if the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The more serious consideration is whether dismissal is required to preserve public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * As Commission Counsel has noted, the breaches in this case are serious and involve a significant breach of the public trust.
  * 265, the court set forth the standard which should be applied when trying to determine whether a decision will bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * said: Since the concept of disrepute involves some element of community views, the test should be put figuratively in terms of the reasonable person: would the admission of the evidence bring the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the reasonable person, dispassionate and fully apprised of the circumstances of the case.
  * Young faces the possibility of losing his job because as a police officer he holds a position of public trust.

### reviews-on-the-record/18-02-Respondent-Response-on-CC-Submissions.pdf
  * The test for discreditable conduct is whether a reasonable, well-informed member of the public, fully apprised of facts, would consider the conduct of the member to bring discredit upon the municipal police department.
  * It is submitted that this hypothetical opinion of the reasonable person must be applied both in determining whether the conduct of the member was discreditable, but also in determining the seriousness, or degree of discredit -24.
  * Discreditable conduct is conduct that a reasonable, well-informed member of the community, would consider brings discredit upon a municipal police department.
  * In many cases conduct of a police officer may be such that an Adjudicator could readily determine that a reasonable, well-informed member of the community would consider the conduct to be discreditable.
  * Even if the Adjudicator began by confining her determination to the question of the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, she would very soon have to grapple with the question of how serious the member’s conduct was – how far into the realm of the discreditable he had strayed.
  * Once the Adjudicator has begun down the path of assessing how discreditable the member’s conduct was, she would, before long, be confronted with the question of whether a reasonable, well-informed member of the community would consider it to be discreditable at all.

### reviews-on-the-record/18-03-Adjudicator-Threlfall-Decision.pdf
  * That section provides that a member commits a disciplinary breach of public trust when, in the capacity of a member, he or she makes an entry in an official document or record knowing that the entry is false or misleading.
  * Woodall wanted the adjudicator at the Public Hearing to hear the testimony of the motorists who received tickets from Constable Ritchie, to determine what the motorists were doing, whether they were deceived by the ticket, whether their interaction brought discredit upon the policing profession, and whether the interaction served the larger purpose of enforcing the law.
  * He was, therefore, satisfied that a Public Hearing was not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct in the administration of police discipline.
  * Because the Police Act is specialized labour legislation, and taking into consideration the philosophy set out in 9 section 126, whereas here the constable is simply trying to do his duty, public trust is not undermined and the offence of misconduct has not been made out.
  * Section 77 of the Police Act defines misconduct as conduct that constitutes a public trust offence.
  * Section 77(3) states that any of the conduct described in subheadings (a) through (m) constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust when committed by a member.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * If I determine that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, section 126(3) provides that an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * I am satisfied that such an approach would not be unworkable or bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### reviews-on-the-record/18-03-Commission-Counsel-Submissions.pdf
  * Whether or not they were happy or satisfied is completely irrelevant and does not speak to the issue of the disrepute that Constable Ritchie has visited upon the Delta Police Department.
  * [93] The Act clearly differentiates between: (1) internal discipline matters, which are internally handled by police departments and may be the subject of grievance proceedings under collective agreements; and (2) misconduct proceedings relating to public trust complaints which are governed exclusively by Part 11 of the Act and are conducted by discipline authorities or adjudicators.
  * Similarly, there is nothing that deems any particular assault to undermine organizational effectiveness or public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Rather, as so we stated by Adjudicator Cia ncy In the Matter of Constables Gem mel! and Kojima, PH 2004-01, the question to be considered is whether a reasonable man or woman aware of all the relevant circumstances would regard the omission to impose a sanction of dismissal in the circumstances of this assault would undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline, and whether, from the Abbotsford Police Department’s perspective the omission would undermine organizational effectiveness.
  * therefore, members who willfully produce a false report, with the intention to induce the courts or other official bodies to make an erroneous finding, can bring the administration of justice into disrepute and, and would likely warrant termination.
  * Woodall is of the view that an Adjudicator should hear the testimony of the motorists who received tickets from Constable Ritchie to determine what the motorists were doing, whether they were deceived by the ticket, whether their interaction brought discredit upon the policing profession, and whether the interactions served the larger purpose of enforcing the law, Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner ttsh Cutuinbii C n.
  * Furthermore, I am satisfied that a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/18-03-Ritchie-Submissions.pdf
  * The Police Act requires that disciplinary or corrective measures give priority to education and correction, and that more punitive measures be applied only if less punitive measures would bring the administration of police discipLine into disrepute.
  * It is submitted that a reasonable, well-informed member of the public, would consider that the administration of police discipline would be brought into to disrepute by meting out harsh punishment on Cst.
  * al principle of discipline under the Police Act is stated as follows: (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Punishment may take precedence over correction and education only where: (1) a corrective or educational approach is “unworkable”; or (2) a non-punitive approach would being the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The second criterion brings into consideration whether disciplinary or corrective measures in a particular case would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * It is submitted that whether disciplinary or corrective measures would bring the administration of justice into disrepute is to be assessed by the perspective of a hypothetical reasonable well informed person, full apprised of the facts.
  * It is further submitted that such a person would not consider that the administration of police discipline is brought into disrepute if Cst.
  * Ritchie with the harsh combination of punishments proposed by the Chief Constable brings the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Similarly, there is nothing that deems any particular assault to undermine organizational effectiveness or public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Rather, as so well stated by Adjudicator Clancy In the Matter of Constables Gemmell and Kojima, PH 2004-0 1, the question to be considered is whether a reasonable man or woman aware of all the relevant circumstances would regard the omission to impose a sanction of dismissal in the circumstances of this assault would undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline, and whether, from the Abbotsford Police Department’s perspective the omission would undermine organizational effectiveness.

### reviews-on-the-record/18945-2022-09-01-Amended-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * Further, a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 4 September 1, 2022 OPCC 2022-18945 RR 2022-02 in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/18945-2023-09-20-Decision_Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * In this instance the Commissioner withheld his approval of the proposed disciplinary measure of a verbal reprimand for the Member’s disciplinary breach of public trust by Abuse of Authority relating to Member’s use of unnecessary force on a person during the performance of his duty.
  * 77(3)(a)(ii)(A) of the Act, appeared to be substantiated, whereas the allegation of a Public Trust offence was not substantiated, the latter matter having been concluded by the OPCC.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) of the Act to adopt “an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned” unless “it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * onsidered in conjunction with the Member’s admission of misconduct in these proceedings, his exemplary record of service as a police officer, his strong investigative, leadership, and management skills, and his workplace reputation, would not find the disposition of a verbal reprimand to bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### reviews-on-the-record/19722-2022-11-09-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * Further, a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/19722-2023-08-22-Decision-on-Disciplinary-and-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * 9 Section 126 of the Police Act provides: (3) Where the adjudicator requires that disciplinary/corrective measures are necessary, the adjudicator must prioritize an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * The placing of false negative details in a report and a less than forthright interview with the Investigator takes this case to a level where “a purely corrective and educative approach would be unworkable and bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute”.

### reviews-on-the-record/2015-01_2015-06-25_Adjudicator_Filmer_Decision.pdf
  * Singh 2009-03: A complaint was received by Professional Standards Section on Janurary 19, 2010, for Neglect of Duty, Discreditable Conduct (x2), for which Constable Gomes received the sanctions of managerial advice, and written reprimand (x2).

### reviews-on-the-record/2015-01_Commission_-Counsel_Submissions.pdf
  * (3): (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * He found that “unworkable” is “not able to function or be carried out successfully; impractical”, “disrepute” as “the state of being held in low public esteem”, and “precedence” as 7 “the condition of being considered more important than something else; priority in importance.
  * Adjudicator Smart offered this guideline: “However, there is not always a bright line between what measures would or would not be workable, and would or would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * As such, the closer the proposed rehabilitative measure moves along the spectrum towards the unworkable or what would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, the more likely the appropriate and just discipline will be more punitive measures.
  * It is respectfully submitted that anything short of dismissal would be “unworkable” in this case, and would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### reviews-on-the-record/2015-01_Constable_Gomes_Submissions.pdf
  * As noted below, when considering the measures that should be imposed for misconduct, an approach that seeks to correct educate must take precedence over purely punitive measures, unless that would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * It is submitted that fair minded people would agree that when one is considering whether a police officers should be dismissed because of the discredit that his actions may bring upon policing or a police department, one should also consider the other acts of the same police officer that have enhanced the credit, repute and image of policing.
  * ple of discipline under the Police Act is stated as follows: (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The Police Act recognizes only two circumstances where punishment may be given priority over correction: (1) where a corrective approach would be “unworkable”; and (2) where correction without punishment would “bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The test that a corrective as opposed to punitive approach would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute is high.

### reviews-on-the-record/2015-01_DA_Counsel_Submissions.pdf
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * An adjudicator or discipline authority must impose a sanction that corrects or educates unless doing so is unworkable or brings the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The question is whether a reasonable member of the public aware of all of the circumstances would consider a sanction other than dismissal to be unworkable or undermine public confidence in administration of police discipline.
  * 126(3) and commented as follows: The Act does not define "unworkable", "disrepute", or "precedence" so I turn to the Dictionary for assistance.
  * The Oxford Dictionary of English, Second Edition, Revised, defines "unworkable" as: "not able to function or be carried out successfully; impractical"; "disrepute" as: "the state of being held in low public esteem"; and "precedence" as: "the condition of being considered more important than something else; priority in importance".
  * Recognizing that this is not an easy task, Adjudicator Smart commented: However, there is not always a bright line between what measures would or would not be workable, and would or would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * As such, the closer the proposed rehabilitative measures move along the spectrum towards the unworkable or what would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, the more likely the appropriate and just discipline will be more punitive measures.
  * In addition to the current findings of deceit (X4) and neglect of duty, his past misconduct relates to findings of abuse of authority, discreditable conduct (X2), unauthorized use of CPIC/PRIME, and neglect of duty.
  * If he has not and cannot, then it would be unworkable to have him continue as a member of the VPD and doing so would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute Charters, supra, at para.
  * It is submitted that the misconduct in this case is so serious that a reasonable person, fully informed on the facts of this case would find that the failure to dismiss Constable Gomes would undermine public confidence in the police disciplinary system.
  * His continued employment as a Delta police officer is impractical or unworkable as it actively undermines the reputation of the Department.

### reviews-on-the-record/2015-01_Notice_of_Review_on-the_Record.pdf
  * Receive evidence that is not part of the record of the disciplinary decision described in section 141(3) of the Police Act or the service record of the member or former member; a public hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * Furthermore, I am satisfied that a public hearing is not required to preserve or restored public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/2016-01-2017-05-10_Adjudicator_McKinnon_Decision.pdf
  * I of the Form 4 Disciplinary Disposition Record as involving: a) 2 counts of Committing a Public Trust Offence; b) 5 counts of Neglect of Duty; 2 c) I count of Deceit; U) 2 counts of Discreditable Conduct; e) 2 counts of Unauthorized use of Police Resources; and f) 1 count of Improper Disclosure of Information.

### reviews-on-the-record/2016-01_2016-09-21-Notice_R_O_R.pdf
  * Discipline Proceeding would be held in relation to the substantiated allegations, namely: 1) Committing a public trust offence pursuant to section 77(2) of the Police Act, by committing an offence under an enactment of Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely render a member unfit to perform his duties as a member or discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * 2) Committing a public trust offence pursuant to section 77(2) of the Police Act, by committing an offence under an enactment of Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely render a member unfit to perform his duties as a member or discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * 9) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, by acting in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * 10) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, by acting in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * 16) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, by acting in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * ty made the following determinations in relation to the allegations: 1) That Constable Thandi committed a public trust offence pursuant to section 77(2) of the Police Act, by committing an offence under an enactment of Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely render a member unfit to perform his duties as a member or discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * ic trust offence pursuant to section 77(2) of the Police Act, by committing an offence under an enactment of Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely render a member unfit to perform his duties Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 5 September 21, 2016 OPCC 2014-9552 as a member or discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * 9) That Constable Thandi committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, by acting in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * 10) That Constable Thandi committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, by acting in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * 16) That Constable Thandi did not commit Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, by acting in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * The Discipline Authority made the following findings with respect to proposed discipline: Allegation #’s 1 and 2 - for the two counts of Committing a Public Trust Offence as defined by s.
  * 77(3)(f)(i)(A) of the Police Act: oral false statement during an interview with Staff Sergeant Dhillon denying he had contacted the witnesses: 15-day suspension Allegation #’s 9 and 10 – Discreditable Conduct as defined by s.
  * Furthermore, I am satisfied that a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * ing disciplinary defaults, pursuant to section 77 of the Police Act: 1) That Constable Thandi committed a public trust offence pursuant to section 77(2) of the Police Act, by committing an offence under an enactment of Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely render a member unfit to perform his duties as a member or discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * 2) That Constable Thandi committed a public trust offence pursuant to section 77(2) of the Police Act, by committing an offence under an enactment of Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely render a member unfit to perform his duties as a member or discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * 9) That Constable Thandi committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, by acting in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * 10) That Constable Thandi committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, by acting in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 10 September 21, 2016 OPCC 2014-9552 16) That Constable Thandi did not commit Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, by acting in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### reviews-on-the-record/2016-02_2016-09-22_Notice_R_O_R.pdf
  * On July 12, 2016, following the Discipline Proceeding, and after considering the available evidence and submissions, the Discipline Authority made the following determinations in relation to the Constable Gabriel’s admitted allegations: (1) That Constable Gabriel, committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * e Record is necessary in the public interest, I have considered several relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 4 September 22, 2016 OPCC 2015-10950 a) The complaint is serious in nature as the allegations involve a significant breach of the public trust; b) The disciplinary or corrective measures proposed are inappropriate and/or inadequate; and c) A Review on the Record is required to preserve or restore public confidence in the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/2017-01-2018-04-18-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * On September 26, 2017, following his review of the FIR, Chief Constable Dave Jones, as the Discipline Authority substantiated one allegation of Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, based on the sample of her breath that registered a fail on the Approved Screening Device (ASD).
  * An agreement was reached in which SMC Keith admitted the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct and agreed to the imposition of a written reprimand as a corrective measure.
  * On February 8, 2018, following the discipline proceeding, and after considering the available evidence and submissions, the Discipline Authority made the following determinations in relation to the allegations: (i) That on March 24, 2017, Special Municipal Constable (SMC) Leanne Keith, committed the disciplinary default of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know , would be likely to bring discredit on a Municipal Police Department.
  * Further, I’m satisfied that a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * It is therefore alleged that SMC Keith committed the following disciplinary default, pursuant to section 77 of the Police Act: (i) That on March 24, 2017, SMC Keith, committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### reviews-on-the-record/2023-01-16-20838-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * On December 16, 2021, after reviewing the information forwarded by the VicPD, I ordered an investigation pursuant to section 93(1) of the Police Act into the conduct of the Member for one allegation of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * On June 30, 2022, pursuant to section 112 of the Police Act, the Discipline Authority, Inspector Colin Brown of the VicPD, identified that the following allegations of misconduct appeared to be substantiated: Allegation #1: Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act for the Member taking videos of prisoners in VicPD cells masturbating and showing them to friends.
  * In arriving at the proposed disciplinary or corrective measure for Discreditable Conduct, the Discipline Authority considered that the Member, at the Discipline Proceeding, admitted to video recording a male apparently masturbating in cells and sending the video to coworkers.
  * In his decision, the Discipline Authority affirmed his section 112 finding that the Discreditable Conduct allegation with regard to the Member’s video recording of persons having intercourse, sending the videos to his friends, and subsequently showing the video to a coworker, did not appear to be substantiated.
  * With respect to the Discipline Authority’s substantiated finding of Discreditable Conduct in relation to the Member’s recording of a male prisoner apparently masturbating in cells and sharing that video, I agree with the Discipline Authority’s determination that misconduct has been proven pursuant to 125(1) of the Act.
  * With respect to the Discipline Authority’s Discipline Proceeding affirmation of his section 112 decision regarding the original allegation of Discreditable Conduct as referenced in the December 16, 2021 Order for Investigation, I have a reasonable basis to believe this determination to be incorrect.
  * Specifically, I have concluded that the Discipline Authority has not sufficiently considered the seriousness of the Member’s conduct in proposing the disciplinary or corrective measure in relation to the substantiated allegation of Discreditable Conduct.
  * In determining that a Review on the Record is necessary in the public interest, I have considered several relevant factors, including but not limited to the following: (i) The complaint is serious in nature as the allegations involve a significant breach of the public trust; (ii) The disciplinary or corrective measures proposed are inappropriate or inadequate; (iii) The conduct has violated or would be likely to violate, a person’s dignity, privacy or other rights recognized by law; 32.
  * A Review on the Record is required in the Public Interest to ensure that all alleged misconduct is reviewed in its totality in light of the seriousness of the allegations of Discreditable Conduct and Deceit.

### reviews-on-the-record/2024-06-21-Decision-of-Adjudicator-Baird-Ellan.pdf
  * M, the Discipline Authority found proven one allegation of discreditable conduct in relation to the intimidation, and two allegations of deceit arising out of false statements during the investigation.
  * Section 137(2) provides that a member who faces reduction in rank is entitled to a public hearing unless the Police Complaint Commissioner concludes that it is unnecessary to cross-examine witnesses or to receive evidence that is not part of the disciplinary decision record, and that public confidence in the administration of police discipline can be preserved without a public hearing.

### reviews-on-the-record/20838-2023-06-23-Notice-of-Oral-Submissions.pdf
  * LICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER British Columbia, Canada NOTICE OPCC 2021-20838 RR 2023-01 June 23, 2023 Date for oral submissions in Review on the Record Victoria - The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner wishes to advise that oral submissions for the review into the findings of a discipline proceeding relating to two allegations of Discreditable Conduct and one allegation of Deceit against Special Municipal Constable Foster Martin of the Victoria Police Department, will be held on Monday, June 26 and Tuesday, June 27, 2023, beginning at 9:30am.

### reviews-on-the-record/20838-2023-10-04-RoR-Decision.pdf
  * I have therefore found that the member has committed acts of misconduct pursuant to sections 77(3)(h), Discreditable Conduct, and Deceit, pursuant to section 77(3)(f)(i)(A) of the Police Act.
  * (9) On December 16, 2021 the Commissioner ordered an investigation under section 93(1) of the Police Act into one allegation of Discreditable Conduct by SMC Martin pursuant to section 77(3)(h).
  * The Discipline Authority substantiated the following allegation which was admitted by SMC Martin at the hearing: “Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section77(3)(h) of the Police Act for taking a video of himself on duty with a male prisoner in the background purportedly masturbating and sharing it with work colleagues.
  * (30) At the section 112 stage of these proceedings, in a written decision dated June 30, 2022, the Discipline Authority made the following decision: “Allegation #1: Discreditable Conduct for the conduct alleged in relation to SMC Martin taking videos of his neighbour having sex and showing a video to a co-worker on dutyappears not to be substantiated.
  * Misconduct Allegation #1- Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * (35) The “Findings of Discipline Authority” found that the allegation of Discreditable Conduct was proven against SMC Martin with respect to the Prisoner Video, however, the allegations of Deceit were not proven to be misconduct.
  * (89) The Discipline Authority substantiated the following allegation which was admitted by SMC Martin at the hearing: “Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section77(3)(h) of the Police Act for taking a video of himself on duty with a male prisoner in the background purportedly masturbating and sharing it with work colleagues.
  * Final Misconduct Allegation #2 with respect to the allegation of Discreditable Conduct in the taking and sharing of the Prisoner Video has been admitted by the member and proven by the Discipline Authority.
  * As set out above and as the parties have noted, allegations of misconduct constituting Deceit engage a disciplinary breach of public trust under section 77(3)(f)(i)(A) of the Police Act.
  * I conclude that the Discipline Authority erred in not finding that SMC Martin had committed misconduct by way of Deceit, a disciplinary breach of public trust under section 77(3)(f)(i)(A) of the Police Act, in orally making SMC Martin’s Deceitful Statements to the Investigator knowing that such statements were untrue and misleading.

### reviews-on-the-record/20838-2023-11-14-Notice-of-Adjudicators-Decision-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * SMC Martin was found to have Substantiated Misconduct including both Discreditable Conduct and two allegations of Deceit.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) of the Police Act provides that “an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute”.
  * (11) Furthermore, Counsel submits that any measure short of dismissal, would be unworkable, and ultimately bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(2)(a) (19) The first substantiated allegation of misconduct relates to discreditable conduct by SMC Martin recording and sharing intimate images of a person in custody with coworkers.
  * 126(2)(e) (38) SMC Martin did acknowledge and accept the allegation of misconduct relating to discreditable conduct.
  * (50) The specific submissions of Counsel to the Commissioner on the relevant authorities are as follows: (a) With respect to discreditable conduct, Counsel notes that there are few recorded local disciplinary decisions; (b) Counsel does rely on an Ontario decision, Orser v Ontario Provincial Police 2018 ONCPC 7 which ultimately saw the dismissal of the member.
  * (53) I am also satisfied that although dismissal is a rare disciplinary sanction, it is properly within the range of cases evidencing the most serious misconduct resulting in a high risk to public confidence in police discipline proceedings, and of course, a loss in confidence in the officer concerned.
  * (viii) Other Aggravating or Mitigating Factors (54) I find that it is relevant to consider the following as other aggravating circumstances: (a) SMC Martin was found to be a not credible witness in these proceedings; and (b) While the age, training and experience of SMC Martin may have some mitigating impact on the discreditable conduct issue, there can be no mitigating impact of those factors in terms of the two findings of misconduct by way of deceit.
  * , paras 26 &27) IX Analysis (55) As noted above, section 126(3) of the Police Act provides that if I consider that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, I should prioritize an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * (57) In circumstances where the evidence establishes a single act of discreditable misconduct or deceit in the context of an otherwise honourable and diligent record of performance, a suspension or demotion may be an appropriate disposition.
  * (58) However, where the facts show a consistent pattern of deceit by way of evasiveness, deception and misconduct, those approaches to discipline and correction run the risk of bringing the process itself and respect for the administration of justice generally into disrepute.
  * (60) I am also satisfied that an approach that seeks to correct or educate the Member would clearly bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * It would do so because such an approach would not provide the appropriate denunciation of the Member’s actions or address the very high likelihood of a loss of public trust in the Member, and the administration of police discipline.
  * 12 (62) Furthermore, in terms of possible correction or education, it is noteworthy that almost two years have elapsed since the misconduct took place and there is no evidence that SMC Martin has taken the initiative to address any further training or education in the areas of his discreditable misconduct.
  * (68) It is my finding that a reasonable person, aware of all of the circumstances of the SMC Martin’s misconduct, and all other relevant factors, would conclude that a failure to dismiss the Member would unquestionably undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * (69) I find that there is an unequivocal public expectation that officers of the law will discharge their duties consistent with public trust in their performance, lawfully and honestly.

### reviews-on-the-record/22122-2024-05-10-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * On November 2, 2023, pursuant to section 112 of the Act, Acting Inspector Jen Daniel as the initial Discipline Authority, identified that the following allegation of misconduct appeared to be substantiated against the Member: Allegation #1: Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Act for driving a motor vehicle with the Member’s blood alcohol level over the legal limit.
  * On November 21, 2023, a Prehearing Conference was convened before Acting Inspector Daniel pertaining to Allegation #1, Discreditable Conduct.
  * On February 28, 2024, following the Discipline Proceeding, the Discipline Authority made the following determination in relation to the allegation: (i) That on July 2, 2022, the Member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act when off duty, operating a motor vehicle with his blood alcohol level over the legal limit.
  * Based on the seriousness of this incident, the discipline proposed does not appear adequate given the seriousness of the Member’s conduct and may be seen to bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Additionally, attempting to conceal this conduct by discarding evidence is a serious affront to the public trust.
  * (iii) The conduct has undermined, or would be likely to undermine, public confidence in the police, the handing of complaints, and the disciplinary process.
  * A Review on the Record is required in the public interest to ensure that the alleged misconduct is reviewed in its totality considering the seriousness of the allegation of Discreditable Conduct.

### reviews-on-the-record/22122-2024-12-04-Notice-of-Oral-Submissions.pdf
  * IONER British Columbia, Canada NOTICE For Immediate Release December 4, 2024 OPCC 2022-22122 RR 2024-02 Date for oral submissions in Review on the Record Victoria - The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner wishes to advise that oral submissions for the review into the findings of a discipline proceeding related to an allegation of Discreditable Conduct against Constable Samuel Cheung of the Vancouver Police Department, will begin on Friday, December 6, 2024, starting at 9:30am.

### reviews-on-the-record/22122-2025-03-07-Notice-of-Oral-Submissions.pdf
  * ISSIONER British Columbia, Canada NOTICE For Immediate Release March 7, 2025 OPCC 2022-22122 RR 2024-02 Date for oral submissions in Review on the Record Victoria - The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner wishes to advise that oral submissions for the review into the findings of a discipline proceeding related to an allegation of Discreditable Conduct against Constable Samuel Cheung of the Vancouver Police Department, will begin on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, starting at 9:30am.

### reviews-on-the-record/22450-2023-08-30-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * During the course of the investigation, the Investigator identified an additional allegation of Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Act, in relation to the Member driving with an expired driver’s license at the time of the incident.
  * On March 23, 2023, pursuant to section 112 of the Act, Inspector Earl Andersen, as the initial Discipline Authority, identified that the following allegations of misconduct appeared to be substantiated against the Member: Allegation #1: Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Act for driving a motor vehicle while impaired.
  * In his decision, Superintendent Chastellaine affirmed the initial Discipline Authority’s section 112 determination that the Member’s statement to the investigating members regarding the number of alcoholic beverages consumed did not appear to constitute Discreditable Conduct.
  * Additionally, attempting to use one’s privileged position as a police officer to seek preferential treatment is a serious affront to the public trust.
  * (iii) The conduct has undermined, or would be likely to undermine, public confidence in the police, the handing of complaints, or the disciplinary process.
  * A Review on the Record is required in the public interest to ensure that the alleged misconduct is reviewed in its totality in light of the seriousness of the allegations of Discreditable Conduct and Corrupt Practice.

### reviews-on-the-record/22450-2024-01-25-Notice-of-Oral-Submissions.pdf
  * SIONER British Columbia, Canada NOTICE For Immediate Release January 25, 2024 OPCC 2022-22450 RR 2023-02 Date for oral submissions in Review on the Record Victoria - The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner wishes to advise that oral submissions for the review into the findings of a discipline proceeding relating to allegations of Discreditable Conduct and Corrupt Practice against Constable Rajbir Thaper of the Surrey Police Service, will begin on Friday, January 26, 2024, starting at 9:30am.

### reviews-on-the-record/22450-2024-07-12-Notice-of-Oral-Submissions.pdf
  * MISSIONER British Columbia, Canada NOTICE For Immediate Release July 12, 2024 OPCC 2022-22450 RR 2023-02 Date for oral submissions in Review on the Record Victoria - The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner wishes to advise that oral submissions for the review into the findings of a discipline proceeding relating to allegations of Discreditable Conduct and Corrupt Practice against Constable Rajbir Thaper of the Surrey Police Service, will begin on Monday, July 15, 2024, starting at 9:30am.

### reviews-on-the-record/22450-2024-09-06-Adjudicator-Arnold-Bailey-Decision.pdf
  * Rajbir Thaper [the Member] for his admitted misconduct that occurred on August 26, 2022, (comprised of two instances of Discreditable Conduct and one instance of Corrupt Practice, under s.
  * He was to assess and analyze the evidence to provide an opinion as to whether the Member had engaged in misconduct amounting to violations of the public trust, as defined in s.
  * A two-day unpaid suspension to be served consecutively for Discreditable Conduct by the operation of a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s licence; and iii.
  * Those cases show the following ranges of discipline or corrective measures: • Discreditable Conduct related to impaired driving: Suspensions ranging from three to 10 days; • Discreditable Conduct related to seeking preferential treatment: Suspensions ranging from two to four days; • Corrupt Practice related to seeking preferential treatment: Suspensions up to four days.
  * Secondly, seeking preferential treatment may give rise to misconduct characterized as Discreditable Conduct or Corrupt Practice.
  * Under this test the judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence “unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest” [at para.
  * 204, instructs judges not to depart from a joint submission unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.
  * Included is “public confidence in the legal profession including public confidence in the disciplinary process.
  * Any consideration of a joint submission for Police Act matters requires that if disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach “that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) “would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute”, Adjudicator McKinnon wrote the following about the public interest: [15] In her reasons regarding the disciplinary or corrective measures in The Matter of Cst.
  * " [16] The issue of whether proposed measures would "bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute" under s.
  * I note that Adjudicator McKinnon was addressing the phrase "bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute" from s.
  * 32) stated that a judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence “unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest”.
  * This means that an arguably higher test for rejecting joint submissions is in place (“breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system”), as opposed to the language contained in Anthony-Cook (“would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest”).
  * 77(1)(b)(ii) of the Police Act defines “misconduct” to include “a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * ” The misconduct admitted by the Member, which includes two instances of “discreditable conduct” by operating a motor vehicle while impaired and operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s licence, is defined by s.
  * 77(3), which states: 19 (h) “discreditable conduct”, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department …” 61.

### reviews-on-the-record/22761-RR-25-01-2025-11-13-Section-150-Order-Reasons.pdf
  * mended REASONS FOR SECTION 150 ORDER Commission Counsel Brian Smith Counsel for the Former Member Anila Srivastava Date of Order November 5, 2025 Date of Reasons November 13, 2025 Overview [1] On September 10, 2025, the Police Complaint Commissioner (“PCC”) issued a Notice ordering a review on the record in relation to two allegations of discreditable conduct and one allegation of corrupt practice against a former VPD member, Keiron McConnell (the “Former Member”).

### reviews-on-the-record/23004-2024-10-01-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * That disclosure has potentially harmful implications for trust and cooperation between the Surrey RCMP and the SPS, and in turn, public confidence in policing.
  * I am also of the view that a public hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/23004-2025-04-04-Adjudicator-Neal-Decision.pdf
  * B, if substantiated, could have had potentially harmful implications for trust and cooperation between the Surrey RCMP and SPS, as well as an important impact on public confidence in policing.
  * B’s actions are “improper disclosure of information” contrary to section 77(3) (i) (i) of the Police Act which specifically provides as follows: 77(3) Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (i)"improper disclosure of information", which is intentionally or recklessly (i)disclosing, or attempting to disclose, information that is acquired by the member in the performance of duties as a member.
  * Stewart, 2017 BCSC 522 that misconduct proceedings, which pertain to public trust defaults, are distinct from internal disciplinary matters, and must be governed exclusively by Part II of the Police Act.
  * B are as follows: (a) A finding of misconduct for a “disciplinary breach of public trust”, contrary to the Commissioner’s submissions, must require an element of seriousness or blame-worthiness.
  * B’s conduct simply does not rise to the level of a “disciplinary breach of public trust”.
  * (59) Counsel further submits that the wording of the Police Act, and the characterization of some misconduct as a “disciplinary breach of public trust” makes clear that there is a degree of severity and impact required.
  * B’s conduct does not rise to the level of a disciplinary breach of public trust.
  * Complying with the strict wording of this provision under the Act, these might all be deemed “disciplinary breaches of public trust”, whether blameworthy or not.
  * Clarity in terms of defining the scope of misconduct by way of an alleged breach of public trust under section 77(3)(i)(i) of the Police Act is critical to a fair assessment of the actions of Sgt.
  * (155) Section 126 of the Police Act provides that If a discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### reviews-on-the-record/23004-2025-05-30-Review-on-the-Record-Decision-of-Adjudicator-Neal.pdf
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) of the Police Act provides that: “an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute”.
  * ” Pursuant to this test, trial judges in criminal proceedings are directed not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.
  * IX Analysis and Order (41) As noted above, section 126(3) of the Police Act provides that if I consider that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, I should prioritize an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * I am also satisfied that doing so would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### reviews-on-the-record/23476-2024-08-09-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * in the circumstances, that it is unnecessary to do any of the following: examine or cross-examine witnesses; receive evidence that is not part of the record of the disciplinary decision described in section 141(3) of the Act or the service record of the member or former member, and; a public hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * I am also of the view that a public hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/23476-2024-11-25-Adjudicator-Threlfall-Decision-Part-1.pdf
  * Brown submitted that the 2019 FIR was a confidential document and its disclosure to the media (disclosure of a Police Act document) could amount to the offence of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act as the disclosed FIR contained serious allegations, some of which were not 3 substantiated by the Discipline Authority.

### reviews-on-the-record/9836_2016-11-18_Notice_of_Review_on_the_Record.pdf
  * In proposing disciplinary and corrective measures pursuant to section 128, the Discipline Authority examined section 126(3) of the Police Act which requires an approach that seeks to correct and educate a member, unless doing so would be unworkable, or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Furthermore, I am satisfied that a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/Adjudicator-Threlfall-Decision.pdf
  * The Review concurs with the Discipline Authority that the Member committed Discreditable Conduct by not providing fulsome information on a submitted Report to Crown Counsel, in particular in regard to the force used on an arrested subject.
  * Those five allegations were generally as follows: (a) Abuse of Authority relating to the arrest of , (b) Abuse of Authority relating to the use of force on arrest, in furtherance of his (c) Discreditable Conduct, (d) Neglect of Duty, and (e) Deceit (collectively, the “Misconduct Allegations”).
  * After considering the evidence and all submissions the Discipline Authority substantiated two allegations: (a) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h)(iii) of the Police Act, and (b) Deceit pursuant to section 77(3)(f)(i)(A) of the Police Act.
  * On March 3, 2021 the Discipline Authority imposed a written reprimand for the offence of Discreditable Conduct and a suspension without pay for 15 working days on the misconduct offence of Deceit.
  * Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #04-09, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services adopted the following definition: The concept of discreditable conduct covers a wide range of potential behaviours.
  * (84) Section 77(3)(m)(ii) of the Police Act provides that it is a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to commit neglect of duty, which is neglecting, without good and sufficient cause, to promptly and diligently do anything that it is one’s duty as a member to do.
  * (104) I find that the Member, Constable Ghuman, has committed the following misconduct pursuant to the Police Act: (a) Abuse of Authority, pursuant to section 77(3)(a)(i), (b) Abuse of Authority, pursuant to section 77(3)(a)(ii)(A), (c) Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h)(iii), and (d) Neglect of Duty, pursuant to section 77(3)(m)(ii).

### reviews-on-the-record/Notice-Oral-Submissions.pdf
  * MISSIONER British Columbia, Canada NOTICE August 16, 2021 OPCC 2018-15600 RR 2020-06 Date for oral submissions in Review on the Record Victoria - The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner wishes to advise that oral submissions for the review into the findings of a discipline proceeding relating to allegations of Abuse of Authority, Discreditable Conduct, Neglect of Duty, and Deceit against Constable Jag Ghuman of the Vancouver Police Department, will be held on Tuesday, August 17, beginning at 9:30 am and will continue on August 18 and 19.

### reviews-on-the-record/Notice-of-Adjudicators-Decision-Regarding-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * (3)If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) of the Police Act provides that an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * V Submissions of Counsel to the Commissioner (11) Counsel to the Commissioner takes the position that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, and that a purely correctional and educative approach would be unworkable and would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * (c) Section 126(3) of the Police Act provides that “if the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute”.
  * An unpaid suspension of one day to run consecutive with the other suspensions outlined in this Decision, and (d) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to s.

### reviews-on-the-record/Notice-of-Adjudicator’s-Decision-Regarding-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) that “an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Steen, unless such an approach would be unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### reviews-on-the-record/Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * At the Discipline Proceeding, the Discipline Authority examined five allegations pertaining to: the arrest of [withheld] (Abuse of Authority); the use of force used on [withheld] (Abuse of Authority); failing to provide fulsome information on a submitted Report to Crown Counsel (Discreditable Conduct); failing to provide [withheld]with his Charter Rights following his arrest (Neglect of Duty); and providing contradictory oral and written evidence during the investigation (Deceit).
  * (iii) The conduct has undermined, or would be likely to undermine, public confidence in the police, the handling of complaints, or the disciplinary process.

### reviews-on-the-record/Recommended-Procedures-RoR.pdf
  * Misconduct Conduct as defined by Division 2 of Part 11 of the Police Act that constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust when committed by a member.
  * If the Adjudicator considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### reviews-on-the-record/Young-Reasons-on-Application-to-Call-Further-Evidence.pdf
  * a)it is unnecessary to do either of the following: (i)examine or cross-examine witnesses; (ii)receive evidence that is not part of the record of the disciplinary decision described in section 141 (3) [review on the record] or the service record of the member or former member, and (b)a public hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### section-117-reviews/10904_2015-12-09_Notice_of_Decision.pdf
  * 367 AND IN THE MATTER OF A REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS OF DECEIT AND DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT AGAINST CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Constable AND TO: Chief Constable AND TO: Inspector AND TO: Sergeant AND TO: Mr.
  * Stan Lowe, Police Complaint Commissioner Police Department Police Department Police Department Police Department Introduction [1] On November 26, 2015, the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a review by a retired judge of a disciplinary authority’s determination that two allegations of discreditable conduct by or on the part of Constable a member of the Police Department, could not be substantiated.
  * The Commissioner framed the allegations as follows: Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department; specifically, failing to cooperate with an impaired driving investigation.
  * Police Department Page 2 Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department; specifically, driving while impaired in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act.
  * Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department; specifically, Constable identified himself as a police officer for the purpose of gaining favourable treatment.
  * [2] Section 77 of the Police Act defines discreditable conduct: 77 (1) In this Part, “misconduct’ means (b) conduct that constitutes (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * Whether the officer’s conduct amounts to discreditable conduct turns on the answer to the question whether the officer knew or ought to have known his conduct would be likely to bring discredit on the [4] Police Department.
  * Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #04-09, namely: The concept of discreditable conduct covers a wide range of potential behaviours.
  * [5] In this case, the disciplinary authority concluded that the allegation of discreditable conduct occasioned by driving while impaired could be substantiated.
  * 77(3)(h), the words “without limitation”, mean that discreditable conduct is any conduct that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the [28] Police Department.
  * In my opinion, the fact that a member advises an investigating officer that he is a police officer does not of itself amount to discreditable conduct.
  * In order that identifying oneself as a police officer will amount to discreditable conduct, there must be objective or subjective evidence from which In the Matter of Const.
  * Expressing that interest or concern is a natural reaction and does not constitute discreditable conduct.
  * [35] The second allegation of misconduct is that engaged in discreditable conduct when he interfered with an investigation by lying to Const.
  * The question therefore is simply this: can the fact that a police officer lies to another officer when one’s conduct is the subject of investigation constitute discreditable conduct? [36] Insofar as roadblocks are concerned, an officer’s investigation of a motorist commences when the officer first approaches and questions the driver about the consumption of alcohol.
  * The same cannot be said of police officers subject to the strictures of the Police Act and subject to sanction should they commit a disciplinary breach of public trust defined by s.
  * Knowledge that an officer had engaged in conduct of that kind would be likely to bring discredit upon the police department of which the officer is a member.
  * [39] I conclude that the evidence in this case appears sufficient to substantiate the allegation that engaged in discreditable conduct by failing to cooperate with the investigation initiated at the roadblock.

### section-117-reviews/10904_2016-06-01_Discipline_Proceeding_Decision.pdf
  * t Commissioner AND TO: - olice Department olice Department Counsel for Constable Introduction [1] This disciplinary proceeding results from the Police Complaint Commissioner’s refusal to accept a 6-day suspension imposed by agreement at a prehearing conference in relation to an allegation of misconduct against Constable namely: :ommilled discreditable conduct That on Constable pursuant of section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act when he failed to cooperate with an impaired driving investigation.
  * - conduct, the Commissioner ordered an investigation into three allegations: discreditable conduct by failing to cooperate with an impaired driving investigation; discreditable conduct by driving a vehicle while impaired; and discreditable conduct by identifying himself as a police officer for the purpose of gaining favourable treatment.
  * It is a principle that I must consider in deciding upon an appropriate sanction for discreditable conduct in the nature of interference with an impaired driving investigation.

### section-117-reviews/11276-2016-10-05-Notice-of-Appointment-of-Retired-Judge.pdf
  * ” and committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Specifically arresting on Thaton , On September 8, 2016, issued his decision pursuant to section 112 in this determined that the allegations of Discreditable Conduct matter.
  * that should be afforded to Regarding the allegation of Discreditable Conduct for transporting to North Vancouver, did not apply the appropriate analysis for I am of the view that considered policy rationales from a policing discreditable conduct, perspective, but did not consider the reasonable expectation of the community regarding transporting apprehended persons out of the jurisdiction and/or a significant distance from finding that was well-intentioned is home.

### section-117-reviews/11276-2016-10-16-Sec-117-Decision-Lazar-Redacted.pdf
  * Pursuant to the provisions of section 117(4) I was thus appointed to review this matter and reach my own decision based on the evidence as to whether 1) abused his authority by unlawfully arresting for Breach of the Peace and 2) brought discredit on the municipal police department by dropping the complainant off at an intersection in North Vancouver.
  * conduct himself in a manner the he knew or ought to have known, would likely bring discredit on the Vancouver Police Department? When was taken into custody sometime between 1:16 and 1:19 AM on tried to advise him of the reason for the detention and his rights under SlO of the Charter.
  * This unprofessional behaviour amounted to conduct that the member knew or ought to have known would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### section-117-reviews/11505-2017-03-09-Conclusion-of-Proceedings-1.pdf
  * Section 126(3) of the Act states that an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/11505_2017-01-25_Sec_117_Decision_Oppal.pdf
  * a public trust offence described in subsection (2), (b) conduct that constitutes (I) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (a) 13.

### section-117-reviews/11766_Notice_of_Adjudicators_Decision.pdf
  * [14] Section 77 of the Police Act further states: (4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/11867-2018-01-26-DISCIPLINARY-DISPOSITION-RECORD-FORM-4-002_Redacted.pdf
  * Form 4, Disciplinary Disposition Record, Section 128(1)(a) 5 (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Analysis and Conclusion [30] Section 126(3) prescribes that if I consider that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, I should prioritize an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/11867-2018-04-25-COP-Redacted.pdf
  * The Commissioner agrees that the discipline/corrective measures imposed are appropriate and would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/12722-2017-05-23_Notice_of_Appointment_of_Retired_Judge.pdf
  * That on committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a mariner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * That on committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * That on pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Specifically, determined that allegation #2 and allegation #3 of Discreditable Conduct against did not appear to be substantiated.
  * Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #04-09, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services adopted the following definition of discreditable conduct: The concept of discreditable conduct covers a wide range of potential behaviours.
  * Adjudicator Piffield commented: In my opinion, the fact that a member advises an investigating officer that he is a police officer does not of itsef aniount to discreditable conduct.
  * In order that identifying oneself as a police officer will amount to discreditable conduct, there must be objective or subjective evidence from zvhich one can conclude that the purpose of identifying onesef as another officer was to gain favourable treatment in the circumstances.
  * The same cannot be said ofpolice officers subject to the strictures of the Police Act and subject to sanction should they commit a disciplinary breach of public trust defined by s.
  * Knowledge that an officer had engaged in conduct of that kind would be likely to bring discredit upon the police department of which the officer is a member.
  * Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British CoLumbia, Canada Page 4 May 23, 2017 OPCC 2016-12722 Police Act proceedings will continue separately in relation to allegation #1 of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act as the Discipline Authority determined that it appeared to be substantiated.

### section-117-reviews/12722_2017-05-29_Adjudicator_Lazar_Decision.pdf
  * That on committed Discreditable Conduct , pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * That on committed Discreditable Conduct , pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * That on committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Did commit discreditable conduct when, during the course of the roadside investigation, he displayed his police badge? 2 Section 77(3) (h) defines discreditable conduct as when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a maimer that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * In determining whether as an off duty police officer, engaged in discreditable conduct when he displayed his police badge to , I agree with and adopt the assessment made by retired judge, Ian Pitfield in his OPCC decision of August 1 1th, 2010.
  * Considering explanation and his overall conduct as confirmed by the investigating officers, I accept his evidence and find that the count alleging that he engaged in discreditable conduct by displaying his police badge is unsubstantiated.
  * Knowledge that an officer had engaged in conduct of that kind would be likely to bring discredit upon the police department of which the officer is a member.
  * Referring back to the public expectation that a police officer will be truthful, it appears that engaged in discreditable conduct by attempting to interfere with an impaired investigation by providing a misleading answer to the investigating RCMP officer about his consumption of alcohol.

### section-117-reviews/13143-03-Nov-2017-S117-Decision.pdf
  * INVESTIGATOR AND TO: C/O PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SECTION VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION OF MISCONDUCT AND NEXT STEPS PURSUANT TO SECTION 117(7) Overview In a Notice dated October 17, 2017 the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a review under Section [1] 117 of the Police Act of an allegation that the subject member committed discreditable conduct pursuant to Section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by displaying his badge while under investigation by an officer from another police force.
  * The Final Investigation Report (FIR) was delivered on September 1, 2017, recommending a finding of discreditable conduct in relation to the original investigation.
  * The investigator also identified and considered an additional allegation that the member committed discreditable conduct by displaying his badge to the attending officers, but the investigator did not recommend a finding of misconduct on that allegation.
  * That section defines the following as a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: fh) “discreditable conduct”, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * 2 That on while off duty the member committed discreditable conduct under Section 77(3)(h) by conducting himself in a manner that he knew or ought to have known would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department; specifically, by displaying his badge and/or identifying himself as a police officer to an investigating officer or officers with the intention of gaining a benefit.
  * Analysis Discreditable Conduct [27] Discreditable conduct is defined in Section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act as “when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * [29] Generally a consideration of discreditable conduct entails an analysis of the nature of the conduct and then a consideration of the officer’s state of knowledge regarding whether it is likely to bring discredit on the department.
  * [30] The issue in relation to whether displaying a badge or identifying oneself as a police officer is discreditable conduct turns on whether there is subjective or objective evidence to support a conclusion that the officer did so for the purpose of gaining preferential treatment: OPCC File No.
  * [31] There is consensus among the adjudicators that if a finding of intent to gain favour is made, the action constitutes discreditable conduct.
  * The finding of intent on the part of the officer has been considered determinative of the issue: there is generally no separate analysis of whether he knew or ought to have known the conduct was likely to discredit the department.
  * 6 The Police Commission adopted the judge adjudicator’s distinction between corrupt practice and discreditable conduct: We agree with Judge Salhany’s view that “the charge of discreditable conduct is directed towards the question of bringing discredit upon the reputation of the police force.
  * He found however that the officer intended to gain a preference, which constituted discreditable conduct.
  * Additionally it strikes me that the characterization of this kind of conduct as discreditable and the applicable analysis under Section 77(3)(h) may be somewhat more tortuous than it would be under Section 77(3)(c)(iii).

### section-117-reviews/13143-2017-10-17-Notice-of-Appointment-of-Retired-Judge.pdf
  * That on , , committed Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would likely bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * That on , , committed Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would likely bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of: #1 - Discreditable Conduct – 1-Day Suspension A report following the prehearing conference was received at our office on October 3, 2017.
  * Pursuant to section 117(1) of the Police Act, having reviewed the allegations and the alleged conduct in its entirety, I consider that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority is incorrect with respect to the allegation #2, Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * referred to Justice Pitfield’s section 117 decision related to OPCC file 2009–4716, which supported the objective test for Discreditable Conduct, as articulated by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) in Mancini v.
  * Justice Pitfield found that simply identifying oneself as a police officer does not itself constitute Discreditable Conduct.
  * Based on my review of decision, I am of the view that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that he was incorrect in his determination that evidence in the FIR did not appear to support substantiation for Discreditable Conduct against .

### section-117-reviews/13143-2017-12-29-Conclusion-of-Proceedings.pdf
  * pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Following the investigation conducted by , the Discipline Authority, determined the evidence appeared to substantiate allegation #1 of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by From his review of the evidence provided in the Final Investigation Report, added a further allegation of Discreditable Conduct as follows: 2.
  * That on , , conmiitted Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Following the investigation conducted by , the Discipline Authority determined the evidence did not appear to substantiate allegation #2 of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by A prehearing conference was offered to with regard to allegation #1 and was held on October 3, 2017, before as the Prehearing Conference Authority.
  * An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of: #1 Discreditable Conduct - — 1-Day Suspension A report following the prehearing conference was received at our office on October 3, 2017.
  * : 201743143 December 29, 2017 Pursuant to section 117(1) of the Police Act, after reviewing the allegations and the alleged conduct in its entirety, the Police Complaint Commissioner (FCC) considered that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect with respect to the allegation #2, Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of: #1 Discreditable Conduct written reprimand.
  * has already admitted to drinking too much that night, and arranged counselling on his own initiative, received a one-day suspension for the initial discreditable conduct allegation for his behaviour.
  * The intent of the Act is to consider an approach that seeks to Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner Iritisb C1unil,i, C1nidd Conclusion of Proceedings OPCC File: 2017-13143 December 29, 2017 correct and educate the member concerned as long as that approach does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * I do not believe that the discipline imposed here for the badging allegations, while on the low end of acceptability, would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/13441-2019-03-19-Sec-117-Adjudicator-Decision.pdf
  * The relevant case law and authorities including Geske and Hamilton Police, OCCPS, 3 July 2003 and Ceyssens “Legal Aspects of Policing” 15 summarize what is necessary to establish a disciplinary breach of public trust by a member by deceit.

### section-117-reviews/13587-2018-06-25-Conclusion-of-Proceedings.pdf
  * The OPCC understands that, as per the report from , considered, in rendering his decision as to the appropriate disciplinary and corrective measures, the negative impact to public confidence in the work of municipal police forces whenever a person is arrested without good and sufficient cause.
  * The OPCC also notes that considered the negative impact to public confidence in the work of municipal police forces whenever a police member uses physical force on a member of the public, even to a lower degree, and where such force is deemed to be excessive.
  * It is the OPCC’s view that the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by , although on the low end for the range of acceptable discipline, is not unreasonable or unworkable and would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/14290-2019-01-22-Conclusion-of-Proceedings-Member-1.pdf
  * The intent of the Act is to consider an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned as long as that approach does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Oppal, would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/14290-2019-01-22-Conclusion-of-Proceedings-Member-2.pdf
  * The intent of the Act is to consider an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned as long as that approach does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Oppal, would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The intent of the Act is to consider an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned as long as that approach does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * I do not believe that the discipline imposed here would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/14353-2020-04-27-Adjudicator-Threlfall-Decision.pdf
  * ublic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (i) an offence under section 86[offences to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106[offences to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section….
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found in subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/14353-2020-09-09-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * lic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (i) an offence under section 86 [offences to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offences to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section….
  * An important overall limitation to the definition of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found in subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/14353-2020-10-19-Discipline-Authoritys-Decision-on-Discipline-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * Section 126(3) requires me to give precedence to an approach that seeks to correct and educate unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/14498-2019-03-19-Notice-of-Appointment-of-Retired-Judge_Redacted.pdf
  * Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act: Did conduct themselves in a manner that they should know, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit to the Vancouver Police Department? 2.
  * In my view, did not apply the appropriate test for assessing Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * In a Police Act decision from August 11, 2010, (OPCC file 2009-4719, In the Matter of Constable **** of the Vancouver Police Department) the Honourable Ian H Pitfield, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of BC, endorsed the test for Discreditable Conduct that was articulated in Mancini v.
  * The above test has been consistently applied by Discipline Authorities and adjudicators during Police Act matters to assess allegations of Discreditable Conduct.
  * However, in this case, appears to have elevated the test for Discreditable Conduct when assessing ’s drinking of an alcoholic beverage in public, which would constitute a breach of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act (LCLA).
  * Further, I am of the view that erred by only assessing the conduct of the officer who admitted to consuming alcohol rather than considering the totality of the groups’ conduct to determine if the participation by all members present in a gathering during which violations of the LCLA were occurring would constitute Discreditable Conduct, or any other form of misconduct pursuant to section 77(3).

### section-117-reviews/16226-2020-03-17-Notice-of-Appointment-of-Retired-Judge.pdf
  * In relation to the first allegation considered by the Discipline Authority, I am of the view that the Discipline Authority erred in not assessing whether, in the alternative, Constable committed Neglect of Duty or Discreditable Conduct when taking action in relation to an incident in which he had a personal interest.
  * With respect to Constable s conduct towards civilians and the RCMP, the Discipline Authority identified the correct test for Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #04-09, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services adopted the following definition of Discreditable Conduct: The concept of Discreditable Conduct covers a wide range of potential behaviours.
  * The above test has been consistently applied by Discipline Authorities and adjudicators to assess allegations of Discreditable Conduct.
  * Specifically, I have a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect in her determination that, when measured against the reasonable expectations of the community, Constable ’s conduct did not constitute Discreditable Conduct.

### section-117-reviews/16226-2020-03-26-Adjudicator-Neal-Decision.pdf
  * Specifically, that the Member identified himself as a police officer to a male civilian and attending members of the RCMP for personal gain, or other purposes unrelated to the proper performance of his duties as a member; (ii) That on April 17, 2019 the Member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act in relation to a male civilian, and in relation to his interaction with the attending RCMP members outside B.
  * Specifically, that the Member identified himself as a police officer to a male civilian for personal gain, or other purposes unrelated to the proper performance of his duties as a member; 2 (ii) That on April 17, 2019 the Member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act in relation to a male civilian, within B.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * In that decision, the Police Commission adopted the judge adjudicator’s distinction between “corrupt practice” and “discreditable conduct”: “We agree with Judge Salhany’s view that “the charge of discreditable conduct” is directed towards the question of bringing discredit upon the reputation of the police force.
  * The second allegation of misconduct considered is as follows: (ii) That on April 17, 2019 the Member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act in relation to a male civilian, and in relation to his interaction with the attending RCMP members outside B.
  * In OPCC case 2017-13143, at page 5, Adjudicator Baird Ellan summarized the law set out by Adjudicator Filmer in Berndt Public Hearing, PH 11-01 and a further decision of Adjudicator Allan in OPCC file 2012-7741 as follows: “Generally, a consideration of discreditable conduct entails and analysis of the nature of the conduct and then a consideration of the officer’s state of knowledge regarding whether it is likely to bring discredit on the department.
  * The issue in relation to whether displaying a badge or identifying oneself as a police officer is discreditable conduct turns on whether there is subjective or objective evidence to support a conclusion that the officer did so for the purpose of gaining preferential treatment: OPCC File 2015-10904.
  * There is consensus amoung adjudicators that if a finding of intent to gain favour is made, the action constitutes discreditable conduct.
  * The finding of 17 intent on the part of the officer has been considered determinative of the issue: there is generally no separate analysis of whether he knew or ought to have known the conduct was likely to discredit the department.
  * In Mancini v Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #4-09, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services set out a practical definition of the concept of Discreditable Conduct which I endorse: “The concept of discreditable conduct covers a wide range of potential behaviours.
  * It appears that the Member ought to have known that his actions in the lobby of would have been likely to bring discredit to the VPD; 68.
  * The evidence does not appear to substantiate misconduct by discreditable conduct once the Member left and began interacting with the RCMP.
  * The misconduct allegation that appears substantiated, therefore, is: (ii) That on April 17, 2019 the Member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act in relation to a male civilian, within B.
  * Specifically, that the Member identified himself as a police officer to a male civilian for personal gain, or other purposes unrelated to the proper performance of his duties as a member; (ii) That on April 17, 2019 the Member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act in relation to a male civilian, within B.

### section-117-reviews/16335-2022-02-17-Adjudicator-Ehrcke-Decision.pdf
  * 3 What Constitutes Misconduct "N/tisconduct" is defined in subsection 77(1) of the Police Act as including a disciplinary breach of public trust under subsection (3).
  * al belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age or economic and social status; (g) "discourtesy", which is failing to behave with courtesy due in the circumstances towards a member of the public in the performance of duties as a member; (4) lt is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/16684-2021-03-19-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * And with respect to Constable : Misconduct: Discourtesy (failing to behave with courtesy do in the circumstances towards a member of the public in the performance of duties as a member), section 77(3)(g) of the Police Act, the particulars of which are that the Member on is alleged to have committed a disciplinary breach of public trust, discourtesy, by using profane and aggressive language in the course of an interaction with the Complainants.
  * In reviewing all of the evidence the Discipline Authority determined that the allegation of abuse of authority for oppressive conduct under section 77(3(a) had not been substantiated, that the allegation of abuse of authority under 77(3)(a)(iii)(racial discrimination) had not been substantiated, that Constable comments did not amount to discreditable conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) and that the same comments would not amount to discourtesy under section 77(3)(g), all of the Police Act.
  * lic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes 6 (i) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (2) A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely (a) render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b) discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found in subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * Misconduct is defined at section 77(1) of the Police Act as conduct that constitutes a public trust offence, conduct that constitutes an offence under section 86 or 106, or a disciplinary breach of public trust.
  * Pursuant to section 77(4), it is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * In most provinces, discourtesy is caught within one of the categories of discreditable conduct, abuse of authority, or disrespectful behaviour.
  * : Earlscourt Legal Press, 1994) there is a useful summary of behaviour amounting to discreditable conduct.
  * The author has this to say: 25 Disrespectful behaviour may constitute discreditable conduct.
  * Depending upon the jurisdiction, disrespectful behaviour is framed as discreditable conduct, abuse of authority, a separate discipline offence, or a separate configuration.
  * The discussion of disrespectful behaviour is consolidated in the analysis of discreditable conduct for ease of reference.
  * In this case the abuse of authority allegation has been particularized by alleging that the officers committed the disciplinary breach of public trust by making profane, abusive or insulting comments towards one of the Complainant’s directed at his race, colour, ancestry and/or place of origin and by singling out the Complainant Mr.

### section-117-reviews/16684-2021-04-19-Discipline-Authoritys-Reasons-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Section 126(3) requires me to give precedence to an approach that seeks to correct and educate unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/17317-2021-07-08-Adjudicator-Neal-Decision.pdf
  * ublic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (i) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * Section 77(3)(a)(i) provides as follows: 77 (1)In this Part, "misconduct" means (b)conduct that constitutes (ii)a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (3)Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (a)"abuse of authority", which is oppressive conduct towards a member of the public, including, without limitation, (i)intentionally or recklessly making an arrest without good and sufficient cause, 55.
  * Section 77(3)(i) provides as follows: (3)Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (i)"improper disclosure of information", which is intentionally or recklessly 30 (i)disclosing, or attempting to disclose, information that is acquired by the member in the performance of duties as a member, 133.

### section-117-reviews/17317-2022-01-28-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * In this Part, "misconduct" means (a)conduct that constitutes a public trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b)conduct that constitutes 5 (i)an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii)a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (2)A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does, or would likely (a)render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b)discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * (16) An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/17317-2022-03-17-Discipline-Authoritys-Reasons-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) of the Police Act provides that “an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute”.
  * 12 IX Analysis (60) As noted above, section 126(3) of the Police Act provides that if I consider that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, I should prioritize an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Members, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * (62) I am also satisfied that such an approach would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/17320-2020-07-12-Adjudicator-Lazar-Decision.pdf
  * Steps taken under the Police Act: • This incident was reported to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and on January 16th, 2021 the Commissioner made an order pursuant to section conduct be investigated externally to 93(1)(b)(ii) of the Police Act that the determine whether it constituted misconduct, specifically, Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * Upon reviewing this decision, the Commissioner was of the view that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority as it related to the allegation of Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act was incorrect and pursuant to Section 117(4) of the Police Act, as a retired judge, I was appointed on June 20, 2021 to review this matter and arrive at my own conclusions.
  * ” Analysis The misconduct allegation has been investigated for is one of Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * That section defines Discreditable Conduct as when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Operating a motor vehicle while impaired would generally amount to discreditable conduct but as with the Criminal Code Offence of Impaired Driving there is a minimal mens rea requirement.
  * A reasonable person would not consider an officer’s conduct discreditable if it were established that the consumption of the alcohol or drug was involuntary or that they could not have been expected to know the intoxicating properties of the substance being consumed.

### section-117-reviews/17320-2021-06-30-Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * Based on the information received, I ordered that Sergeant ’s conduct be investigated externally pursuant to section 93(1)(b)(ii) of the Police Act to determine whether the conduct constituted misconduct, specifically Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * Specifically, Inspector identified two allegations of misconduct against Sergeant He determined that the allegations of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act and Deceit pursuant to section 77(f)(i)(A) of the Police Act did not appear to be substantiated.
  * The Discipline Authority concluded that he could find nothing in the member’s behaviour, words, or actions that would lead a dispassionate, reasonable, and fully apprised person to believe that the member’s actions did, or likely would, bring discredit to the OBPD.
  * With respect to Sergeant operation of a motor vehicle after having consumed prescription medications and alcohol, while exhibiting signs of impairment, the Discipline Authority identified the correct test for Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #04-09, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services adopted the following definition of Discreditable Conduct: The concept of Discreditable Conduct covers a wide range of potential behaviours.
  * The above test has been consistently applied by Discipline Authorities and adjudicators to assess allegations of Discreditable Conduct.
  * Specifically, I have a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect in his determination that, when measured against the reasonable expectations of the community, Sergeant conduct did not constitute Discreditable Conduct.

### section-117-reviews/18123-2021-08-11-Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * The Discipline Authority was satisfied that a reasonable person in the community would not find Constable manner in her delivery to bring discredit on the VPD.

### section-117-reviews/18123-2021-08-26-Adjudicator-Baird-Ellan-Decision.pdf
  * That on June 25, 2019, Constable committed discreditable conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h), by conducting herself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the police department, by failing to meet professional standards in the delivery of a next-of-kin notification; 2.
  * Discreditable Conduct [56] Section 77(3)(h) provides that discreditable conduct is “when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * 20-18123, Section 117 Review Page 16 of 37 authority on the nature of discreditable conduct in relation to police discipline.
  * The following passage from that case sets out the test that the Alberta Court of Appeal adopted: [11] The Presiding Officer articulated what counsel agreed was an acceptable test for determining discreditable conduct.
  * The question under this allegation is whether firstly, Constable knowingly departed from the departmental standard, and if so, whether she knew or ought to have known that doing so might tend to bring discredit on the department.
  * Based on that there is evidence that would appear to substantiate a finding that she would recognize that the likely effect of failing to meet the departmental standard would be discredit to the department.
  * 20-18123, Section 117 Review [71] Page 20 of 37 My conclusion at this stage is that the evidence appears sufficient to substantiate a finding that the manner in which Constable the news of delivered death did not meet professional standards and that she knew or ought to have known that it would be likely to bring discredit on the department.
  * As well, the analysis of neglect of duty overlaps somewhat with that of discreditable conduct.
  * Peel Regional Police Service,15 the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld a finding of discreditable conduct under the Ontario legislation, by the use of “profane, abusive or insulting language.
  * The Commission applied the reasonable informed observer test only to the issue of whether the officer was aware his actions might bring disrepute to the department,16 a component not applicable under Section 77(3)(a).

### section-117-reviews/18123-2023-11-27-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * That on June 25, 2019, Constable committed discreditable conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h), by conducting herself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the police department, by failing to meet professional standards in the delivery of a next-of-kin notification; 2.
  * Discreditable Conduct [89] Under Section 77(3)(h), discreditable conduct is “when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * circumstances and with due regard for any applicable rules and regulations (or law) in force and with due regard to good faith considerations where the officer under scrutiny was required to exercise discretion under the circumstances… [91] Member’s counsel submits that there is no basis to find the member’s conduct rises to the level of discreditable conduct.
  * The remaining question in relation to discreditable conduct is whether she knew or ought to have known that doing so might tend to bring discredit on the department.
  * While I am of the view that the member’s failure to adequately discharge this particular duty did in fact bring discredit on the department, I consider the aspect of whether she knew or ought to have known that discredit to the department would be the result to be an additional layer of intent that may be lacking in relation to the conduct here.
  * [94] Put another way, although I see the member’s failure as neglectful, I do not see it as either an improper exercise of discretion or knowingly behaving in a discreditable fashion.

### section-117-reviews/18123-2024-03-15-Conclusion-of-Proceedings.pdf
  * Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 2 March 15, 2024 OPCC 2020-18123 Notwithstanding that there is no reason to question the Displine Authority’s decision in this matter, a Public Hearing or Review on the Record would also prolong this harm and could serve to undermine public confidence in the disciplinary process.

### section-117-reviews/18524-2021-06-07-Adjudicator-Pendleton-Decision.pdf
  * I am mindful of the limitation to the definitions of misconduct in Section 77 found in Section 77(4): 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/18524-2023-01-24-Discipline-Authoritys-Reasons-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * The misconduct alleged was that the member committed a disciplinary breach of public trust contrary to Section 77 (3)(a)(ii)(A) of the Police Act on September 12, 2020.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The appropriate outcome should correct and educate the member unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Section 126(3) requires me to give precedence to an approach that seeks to correct and educate unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * After considering the material filed on behalf of Constable and having regard to the factors set out in section 126(2), I am satisfied that it is appropriate to correct and educate Constable and to do so would be workable and would not bring the administration of police justice into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/19261-2022-07-21-Adjudicator-Arnold-Bailey-Decision.pdf
  * That subsection specifies Neglect of Duty as, a form of “a disciplinary 5 breach of public trust”, “which is neglecting, without good or sufficient cause, to […] promptly and diligently do anything that it is one’s duty as a member to do”.
  * Section 77(1)(b)(ii) establishes the category of “a disciplinary breach of public trust” as described in ss.
  * The Police Act also contains the following provision: (4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/19515-2021-11-24-Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * Specifically, the Discipline Authority identified one allegation of misconduct against Constable He determined that the allegation of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act against Constable did not appear to be substantiated.
  * Having reviewed the evidence the Discipline Authority determined, “that the evidence is sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to establish on a balance of probabilities that Constable did not commit the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct.
  * ” The Discipline Authority concluded that as much as the Member did not need to say these words, it was in response to provoking the Member, however he was “satisfied that Constable responses did not reach the level required to become a misconduct, in particular Discreditable Conduct.
  * In addition, it is my view that the Discipline Authority is incorrect when he determined that the Member did not commit Discreditable Conduct.

### section-117-reviews/19515-2021-12-10-Adjudicator-Arnold-Bailey-Decision.pdf
  * 2): Having reviewed the evidence the Discipline Authority determined, “that the evidence is sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to establish on a balance of probabilities that Constable did not commit the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct.
  * “satisfied that Constable provoking the Member, however, he was responses did not reach the level required to become a misconduct, in particular Discreditable Conduct.
  * In addition, it is my view that the Discipline Authority is incorrect when he determined that the Member did not commit Discreditable Conduct.
  * engaged in discreditable conduct while on duty, by conducting himself in a manner that he knew or ought to have known would be likely to bring discredit on the Vancouver Police Department by his conduct and comments in relation to Ms.
  * The essential elements of this alleged misconduct are: 1) The member is on or off duty, 28 2) the member conducts themselves in a manner (act or behaviour), 3) that the member knows, or ought to have known 4) would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * 77(3)(h) of the Act sets out the elements and then specifies “including, without limitation”, before positing three specific ways in which misconduct may occur, makes it clear that the category of discreditable conduct is wide and large, and encompasses any act or behaviour that is likely to bring discredit on the municipal police force.
  * Would a reasonable person from the community find that the officer’s conduct likely discredits the reputation of the police force? In this case there are aspects of Cst.
  * Did he know or ought to have known that his behaviour would be 31 likely to bring discredit on the VPD? I find that as “a dispassionate, reasonable person fully apprised of the circumstances” I am unable to make this apparent finding.
  * I am not of the view that the evidence appears sufficient to substantiate the allegation of discreditable conduct.
  * behaviour would not bring credit to the VPD, when viewed in the context of all the circumstances of the Incident, his behaviour appears to fall short of being discreditable.
  * Therefore, having given this matter careful consideration I find that I am unable to conclude that the evidence presented is sufficient to substantiate the allegation of discreditable conduct contrary to s.
  * The evidence does not appear to be sufficient to substantiate the allegation of Discreditable Conduct while on duty by conducting himself in a manner that he knew or ought to have known would be likely to bring discredit on the Vancouver Police Department in relation to his dealings with Ms.

### section-117-reviews/19627-2024-02-25-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * The provisions of Section 77 which are applicable are as follows: Defining misconduct 77(1) In this Part “misconduct” means (b) conduct that constitutes (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (3) Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (m) “neglect of duty”, which is neglecting, without good or sufficient cause, to do any of the following: (ii) promptly and diligently do anything that it is one’s duty as a member to do 8.
  * Section 77(4) qualifies a misconduct assessment with these words: 4 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/19627-2024-07-16-Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * While section 77(3) of the Act specifies a mental element for many of the defined disciplinary breaches of public trust, there is no such mental element required for Neglect of Duty.

### section-117-reviews/19627-2024-08-21-Adjudicator-Hoy-Decision.pdf
  * Section 77(3)(m)(ii) of the Police Act says this: (3) Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (m) “neglect of duty” , which is neglecting without good or sufficient cause, to do any of the following: (ii) promptly and diligently do anything that it is one’s duty as a member to do; 40.

### section-117-reviews/19627-2025-03-18-Discipline-Authoritys-Reasons-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * On February 25, 2025, I had rendered my section 125 decision and found that Cst had committed a disciplinary breach of public trust, Neglect of Duty, contrary to section 77(3)(m)(ii) in failing to “promptly and diligently” follow his duty to ensure the well-being and protection of the affected person with appropriate medical assistance.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The proviso would encompass an unworkable solution or if it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * This meets the 7 objectives of the Act to correct and educate and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the circumstances of this case, the type of neglect of duty considered, the absence of any other discipline record and the officer’s exemplary career.

### section-117-reviews/2009-4584_2011-03-25_Section_117_Appointment.pdf
  * Sergeant [ recommended that the allegations included in Count 1, 2, 3, and 4 against NWPS be substantiated: Count 1 — Discreditable Conduct That on it is alleged that , .
  * cted in a manner to wit: while on duty, conducted 1; in a manner that the member knew, or ought to have known, would likely bring discredit on the that ii proved would constitute misconduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.

### section-117-reviews/2011-6633_2012-03-22_Section_117_Appointment.pdf
  * On March 14, 2012, issued his Notice of Decision pursuant to section 112 of the Police Act I determined that the evidence appeared to substantiate the following allegation: Allegation #1 - Discreditable Conduct s.
  * The Discipline Authority further determined that the evidence did not substantiate the following allegation: Allegation #2 — Discreditable Conduct s.

### section-117-reviews/2012-7741_2013-07-17_Section_117_Appointment.pdf
  * Sergeant identified the following counts of misconduct: Count 1 — Discreditable Conduct It is alleged that committed the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct as per s.
  * -2- Count 2 — Discreditable Conduct It is alleged that committed the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct as per s.
  * Sergeant recommended that Count #1 of the Discreditable Conduct allegations against be substantiated and that Count #2 of the Discreditable Conduct allegations be unsubstantiated.

### section-117-reviews/2012-8138_2013-08-26_Section_117_Appointment.pdf
  * My second concern was the Discipline Authority’s characterization of the new allegations as Discreditable Conduct.
  * In my view, based on my review of the evidence, the appropriate allegation to be considered was Deceit as defined pursuant to section 77(f)(i)(B) of the Police Act, as opposed to Discreditable Conduct.

### section-117-reviews/2013-9281_2014-08-15_Section_117_Appointment.pdf
  * Sergeant identified the following counts of misconduct: Allegation 1 — Discreditable Conduct It is alleged that committed the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct as per section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by urinating on the floor inside the River Rock Casino high roller lounge.
  * Allegation 2 — Discreditable Conduct It is alleged that committed the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct as per section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by identifying himself as a police officer with the VPD and flashing his badge when approached by security staff.
  * Allegation 3 — Discreditable Conduct It is alleged that committed the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct as per section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by inappropriately touching two women inside the casino.

### section-117-reviews/20136-2022-07-18-Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * Discreditable conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * DA Decision The Discipline Authority unsubstantiated the allegation of Discreditable Conduct.
  * The Discipline Authority determined that while the Member “used poor judgment in showing the video”, none of the behaviour would bring discredit to the department.
  * OPCC Decision, Section 117 of the Police Act I have reviewed the Discipline Authority’s decision and have determined that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority is incorrect in relation to the Discreditable conduct and Improper use or care of firearms allegations and that a retired judge should be appointed pursuant to section 117 of the Police Act.
  * There are concerns with the Discipline Authority’s analysis on the issue of Discreditable conduct.
  * Pitfield in OPCC 2009-4716, the following is the relevant test for determining Discreditable conduct: [17] In Mancini v.
  * Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #04-09, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services adopted the following definition of discreditable conduct: The concept of discreditable conduct covers a wide range of potential behaviours.

### section-117-reviews/20136-2022-08-30-Adjudicator-Takahashi-Decision.pdf
  * In his report Sergeant identified 3 issues of misconduct against the Member: discreditable conduct; improper use or care of firearms, and corrupt practice.
  * THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT Count 1 Discreditable Conduct That the Member committed discreditable conduct contrary to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * The Law: Section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act defines discreditable conduct as a manner of conduct that the member knows or ought to know will likely bring discredit on the police department.

### section-117-reviews/20136-2023-02-07-Conclusion-of-Proceedings.pdf
  * ca OPCC ID 903-20201125 Conclusion of Proceedings OPCC File: 2021-20136 February 7, 2023 Following the section 117 review, the appointed Discipline Authority determined the evidence appeared to substantiate the allegations of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act and Corrupt Practice pursuant to section 77(3)(c)(iv) by Constable .

### section-117-reviews/2015-10371-01_2016-07-11_Section_117_Appointment.pdf
  * That conmiitted Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by conducting himself in a manner which he knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * The Discipline Authority determined that the allegation of Discreditable Conduct against was unsubstantiated.
  * I am of the view that the Discipline Authority did not properly assess the member’s conduct in terms of his level of participation in the preparation of the letter, whether or not its submission during the discipline phase of a public hearing would likely bring discredit to the VPD and, if so, whether the member’s participation constitutes Discreditable Conduct.

### section-117-reviews/2015-10371-02_2016-07-28_Notice_of_Decision.pdf
  * They have not worked in the past and to consider them again in such a serious circumstance would bring the administration of police discipline into serious disrepute.
  * committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act by conducting himself in a manner which he knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit on the municiDal iolice department.
  * 77(3)(h), identifies one specific type of “disciplinary breach of public trust”, defined as follows: “discreditable conduct,” which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, AC/4568254 Page-f OPCC File: 2015-10371-01 would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department, including, without limitation, doing any of the following: 19.
  * instead, the alleged misconduct arises in preparing the Letter in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on thL It is apparent to me that a carefully prepared, accurate and fair letter would not tend to bring discredit on a police department.
  * But an inaccurate letter prepared without care, prone to misleading the reader, would give rise to the likelihood of bringing discredit on the department.
  * 117(9) of the Police Act, that conduct in preparing the Letter appears to constitute misconduct, specifically discreditable conduct contrary to s.

### section-117-reviews/2015-10904_2015-11-26_Section_117_Appointment.pdf
  * Specif determined that the allegations of Discreditable Conduct for failing to comply with the impaired driving investigation, and Discreditable Conduct for identifying himself as a police officer for the purpose of gaining favourable treatment against did not appear to be substantiated.

### section-117-reviews/2022-22748-2023-07-19-Adjudicator-Baird-Ellan-Decision.pdf
  * [11] The complaint was found admissible as two potential allegations: discreditable conduct and corrupt practice, and investigated as such.
  * [60] Page 14 of 22 Discreditable Conduct, Section 77(3)(h) Under Section 77(3)(h), discreditable conduct is defined as conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows or ought to know would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department, whether on or off duty.
  * [61] Although this is not a review of the investigating officer’s decision per se, it is instructive to consider the basis on which he concluded that the conduct of the member was not discreditable conduct, particularly given that there are not a lot of conflicts in the evidence.
  * … Based on [the member’s] mindset, his perspective and evidence that he had no intention to drive, …he may not have subjectively known or ought to have known that his actions would bring discredit to the [department] … as during his interaction, [the member] was defending himself, while being personally attacked, and at the same time providing answers and attempting to satisfy [the complainant’s] concerns.
  * The member’s conduct over the course of the evening, considered objectively, was found in that case to cumulatively support a finding of discreditable conduct.
  * [65] Discreditable conduct of course includes the additional element of the officer’s knowing or being reckless as to whether his conduct is likely to bring discredit on the department.
  * The investigator observed that the member did not appear to know that his conduct might discredit the department because he did not intend to drive and he was being personally attacked by the complainant.
  * The element of knowledge of discredit pertains to whether the member recognized both that his conduct was discreditable, and that it was likely to be attributed to him as a police officer, although the latter factor would appear to be satisfied in this matter by the fact that he identified himself as such.
  * [66] The second aspect in relation to the member’s mental state, however, and I believe the aspect that the investigator was considering, is whether the member also had apparent knowledge of the discreditable nature of his conduct.
  * Retired Justice Oppal posed the question, “what conclusions would reasonable people in the community draw from an objective analysis of the evidence?” In this matter, the question, similarly, will be whether the conduct, considered cumulatively and objectively, amounted to behaviour that the member knew or ought to have known could bring discredit to the department.
  * Use of Office as Discreditable Conduct [69] In a prior matter referred to by the investigator, I considered whether improper use of office should be dealt with as discreditable conduct or as corrupt practice under Section 77(3)(c)(iii)5.
  * As a result they also engage in less analysis of the member’s understanding of the likely result, although that is an element of discreditable conduct.
  * Accordingly, while I consider the fact that the member identified himself as a police officer in the course of his interaction with the complainant to be a factor contributing to the discreditable nature of his conduct, I will consider the member’s use of his office and production of his badge as a separate allegation of corrupt practice, and subsequently, neglect of duty.
  * Furthermore, in the absence of gaining preferential treatment, … [the] actions of showing his badge would not bring discredit to the [department].
  * [94] For the assistance of a prehearing conference authority, if the member has no disciplinary record and accepts responsibility at a prehearing conference, I would consider that a finding of discreditable conduct and neglect of duty would suffice (without the corrupt practice allegation), and that the measures set out above, but without a suspension, would be sufficient.

### section-117-reviews/2022-22748-2023-10-26-Conclusion-of-Proceedings.pdf
  * failing to comply with departmental policy prohibiting the production of a police badge when off duty Discipline Proposed: • Re-training in ethical standards and SPS policy related to conduct while off-duty Following the section 117 review, the appointed Discipline Authority determined the evidence appeared to substantiate allegations of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, Corrupt Practice pursuant to section 77(3)(c)(ii) of the Police Act, and Neglect of Duty pursuant to section 77(3)(m)(ii) of the Police Act by Constable .

### section-117-reviews/20286-2024-07-15-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * Section 77(4) limits any misconduct assessment with these words: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/20351-2022-09-08-Adjudicator-Neal-Decision.pdf
  * ublic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (i) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * Section 77(3)(a)(i) provides as follows: 77 (1)In this Part, "misconduct" means (b)conduct that constitutes (ii)a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.

### section-117-reviews/20351-2023-03-13-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * 1)In this Part, "misconduct" means (a)conduct that constitutes a public trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b)conduct that constitutes (i)an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii)a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (2)A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does, or would likely (a)render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b)discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * ood and sufficient cause, (ii)in the performance, or purported performance, of duties, intentionally or recklessly (A)using unnecessary force on any person, (19)An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/21618-2023-03-09-Adjudicator-Arnold-Bailey-Decision.pdf
  * Section 77(1)(b)(ii) establishes the category of “a disciplinary breach of public trust” that includes several forms of misconduct that constitute an “abuse of authority” as set out in s.
  * ary force on any person, or (B) detaining or searching any person without good and sufficient cause, […] (m) “neglect of duty”, which is neglecting, without good or sufficient cause, to do any of the following: […] (ii) promptly and diligently do anything that it is one’s duty as a member to do; […] (4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/21634-2023-09-14-Adjudicator-Threlfall-Decision.pdf
  * a public trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b)conduct that constitutes (i)an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii)a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (2)A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely (a)render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b)discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found in subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/21665-2023-02-02-Adjudicator-Threlfall-Decision.pdf
  * ublic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (i) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (2) A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely (a) render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b) discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.

### section-117-reviews/21665-2023-08-25-Findings-of-Disclipline-Authority.pdf
  * c trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes 4 (i) an offence under section 86 [offences to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offences to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section….
  * (2) A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely (a) render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b) discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * (3) Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: … (m)"neglect of duty", which is neglecting, without good or sufficient cause, to do any of the following: (i) … (ii) promptly and diligently do anything that it is one's duty as a member to do; (ii) 24.
  * [Emphasis added] An important overall limitation to the definition of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found in subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/21665-2023-09-26-Discipline-Authoritys-Reasons-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Although not all breaches of the Charter bring the administration of justice into disrepute the failure to provide the Complainant with his legal rights is a breach of the law and departmental policy.
  * Section 126(3) of the Police Act requires me to give precedence to an approach that seeks to correct and educate unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/21993-2023-07-20-Adjudicator-Neal-Decision.pdf
  * ublic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (i) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/21993-2023-12-22-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * 1)In this Part, "misconduct" means (a)conduct that constitutes a public trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b)conduct that constitutes (i)an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii)a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (2)A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does, or would likely (a)render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b)discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * d and sufficient cause, 5 (ii)in the performance, or purported performance, of duties, intentionally or recklessly (A)using unnecessary force on any person, (17)An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/22042-2023-05-04-Adjudicator-Pendleton-Decision.pdf
  * I am mindful of the limitation to the definitions of misconduct in Section 77 found in Section 77(4): 8 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * Yet, she trivialized the physical and mental trauma I went through, discredited my report, and let him off scot-free without even speaking to him, 13 without even warning him that his actions were unlawful and had been reported to the police.

### section-117-reviews/22748-2023-06-29-Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * Specifically, the Discipline Authority identified two allegations of misconduct against Constable (Member), including Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, and Corrupt Practice pursuant to section 77(3)(c)(iii) of the Police Act.
  * Discipline Authority’s Decision The Discipline Authority stated that it was his belief that the Member had no intention to drive while intoxicated and submits that the Member was not stupefied and intoxicated to a point that he knew, or ought to know, would likely bring discredit on the police community.

### section-117-reviews/22930-2024-09-11-Adjudicator-Pendleton-Decision.pdf
  * I am mindful of the limitation to the definitions of misconduct in Section 77 found in Section 77(4): 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/22930-2025-07-10-Discipline-Authoritys-Reasons-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * The misconduct alleged was that the member committed a disciplinary breach of public trust contrary to Section 77 (3)(a)(ii)(A) of the Police Act on November 24, 2022.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The appropriate outcome should correct and educate the member unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Section 126(3) requires me to give precedence to an approach that seeks to correct and educate unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * After considering the material filed on behalf of Constable and having regard to the factors set out in section 126(2), I am satisfied it is appropriate to correct and educate Constable and to do so would be 17 workable and would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/23240-2024-01-13-Adjudicator-Arnold-Bailey-Decision.pdf
  * Section 77(1)(b)(ii) establishes the category of “a disciplinary breach of public trust” as described in ss.
  * ] Section 77(4) states that it is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct necessary for the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/23240-2026-01-12-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * The only issue to be decided is whether there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence before me to establish on a balance of probabilities that the Member committed a disciplinary breach of public trust by engaging in oppressive conduct towards Ms.
  * Section 77(1)(b)(ii) establishes the category of “a disciplinary breach of public trust” as described in ss.
  * Section 77(4) states that it is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct necessary for the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/23394-2023-11-14-Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * The Discipline Authority determined that both the allegation of Abuse of Authority and Discreditable Conduct against Constable did not appear to be substantiated.

### section-117-reviews/23394-2023-12-19-Adjudicator-Pendleton-Decision.pdf
  * He found that the conduct of the officers would, if substantiated, constitute misconduct and that the conduct could be potentially defined as Abuse of Authority (intentionally or recklessly using force on any person) pursuant to section 77(3)(a)(ii)(A) and Discreditable Conduct (conduct likely to bring discredit on the police department) pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * 3 and he held that the member did not act in a manner that would be found to be discreditable conduct.
  * Inspector identified two allegations of misconduct against Constable specifically Abuse of Authority pursuant to section 77(3)(a)(ii)(A) and Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * The conduct of concern here is whether Constable intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force against and whether his conduct was discreditable.
  * Discreditable Conduct which is when on duty conducting himself in a manner that he knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the VPD contrary to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * I am mindful of the limitation to the definitions of misconduct in Section 77 found in Section 77(4): 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * He stated: That Constable did not act in a manner that would be found to 18 be discreditable conduct.
  * amounts to conduct the member knew, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the VPD.
  * Based on the materials and evidence, I find the evidence appears sufficient to substantiate the allegations that Constable recklessly used unnecessary force and conducted himself in a manner that he knew, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the VPD.

### section-117-reviews/23394-2025-02-07-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * The allegations, which are set out below, concern, firstly, whether Constable intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force, and, secondly, whether the member’s conduct was discreditable.
  * He found that the conduct of the officers would, if substantiated, constitute misconduct and that the conduct could be potentially defined as Abuse of Authority (intentionally or recklessly using force on any person) pursuant to section 77(3)(a)(ii)(A) and Discreditable Conduct (conduct likely to bring discredit on the police department) pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * also concluded used homophobic slurs in his and he decided that the member did not act in a manner that would be found to be discreditable conduct.
  * Inspector identified two allegations of misconduct against Constable specifically Abuse of Authority pursuant to section 77(3)(a)(ii)(A) and Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * “Misconduct” means: (3) Subject to subsection (4), any conduct described in the following paragraphs constitute a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (a)(ii) in the performance or purported performance, of duties, intentionally or recklessly (A) using unnecessary force on any person (h) discreditable conduct, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * The conduct of concern here is whether Constable unnecessary force against discreditable.
  * I agree with counsel that the evidence does not prove on a balance of probabilities the member conducted himself in a manner that would be likely to bring discredit to the VPD.
  * The evidence does not prove on a balance of probabilities that Constable conducted himself in a manner that he knew, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the VPD.

### section-117-reviews/23532-2023-01-16-Adjudicator-Takahashi-Decision.pdf
  * sections 77(1)(a) and 77(2)(b) by committing an offence that would discredit the member’s police department; or b.
  * s under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the 8 circumstances, the admission of it in a proceeding would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * Section 77(3) of the Act stipulates: [A]ny of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of a public trust, when committed by a member: (m) “neglect of duty”, which is neglecting, without good and sufficient cause, to do any of the following: (ii) promptly and diligently do anything that it is one’s duty to do; 55.

### section-117-reviews/23532-2024-10-28-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * Section 77 of the Act provides that: (3) …any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member (a) “abuse of authority” which is oppressive conduct towards a member of the public, including, without limitation, (i) intentionally or recklessly making an arrest without good or sufficient reason.
  * Section 77(3) of the Act provides that: [A]ny of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of a public trust, when committed by a member: (m) “neglect of duty”, which is neglecting, without good and sufficient cause, to do any of the following: (ii) promptly and diligently do anything that it is one’s duty to do.

### section-117-reviews/23532-2024-12-07-Discipline-Authoritys-Reasons-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Officer misconduct brings the police department and the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * Yet to not provide a significant consequence would bring the reputation of the police complaints process and the administration of justice into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/23532-2025-02-04-Conclusion-of-Proceedings.pdf
  * ” I agree with Constable that the Act calls for an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/23655-2024-03-08-Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * Specifically, it appears that the Discipline Authority failed to adequately assess the impact that this patch has on members of the community and public confidence in policing, including the perception that the patch symbolizes a dividing line between the police and the public, as discussed in VPD’s January 19, 2023, Briefing Report titled, “The Thin Blue Line.
  * While section 77(3) of the Police Act specifies a mental element for many of the defined disciplinary breaches of public trust, there is no such mental element required for Neglect of Duty.
  * Finally, I have a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority erred in not assessing whether the Member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * The Discipline Authority should have considered whether the Member knew or ought to have known that wearing the patch in question would be likely to bring discredit to the VPD, noting that he wore the patch during a “decampment” process in the Vancouver Downtown Eastside involving highly marginalized individuals.

### section-117-reviews/23724-2024-04-05-Adjudicator-Neal-Decision.pdf
  * As a result of my review of the FIR, and in accordance with section 117 of the Police Act, I have determined that the evidence considered appears sufficient to substantiate certain alleged misconduct concerning the Members, potentially requiring consideration of disciplinary or corrective measures on two disciplinary breaches of public trust: (a) Discourtesy with respect to the Affected Person, contrary to section 77(3)g of the Police Act; and (b) Neglect of duty with respect to the Affected Person contrary to section 77(3)m (ii) of the Police Act.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * tion 126(3) of the Police Act with respect to this issue: 126(3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/23724-2024-12-18-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * 77 (1)In this Part, "misconduct" means 4 (a) (b) conduct that constitutes a public trust offence described in subsection (2), or conduct that constitutes (ii)a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (24) An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/23724-2025-01-22-Disciplinary-Authoritys-Reasons-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * __________________________________________________________________________ Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Executive Summary In a Disciplinary Decision rendered December 18, 2024, the Members were each found to have admitted substantiated allegations of misconduct by way of disciplinary breaches of public trust.
  * I Overview (1) On December 18, 2024 a Discipline Decision rendered found that there was an admitted act of substantiated misconduct with respect to each of the Members as follows: A disciplinary breach of public trust by way of Discourtesy with respect to the Affected Person, contrary to section 77(3)g of the Police Act.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes 3 precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) of the Police Act provides that: “an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute”.
  * onsidering appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures under section 126 of the Police Act, section 126(3) directs that a Discipline Authority must approach this phase of proceeding with a view to correcting and educating the member, unless such an order is either unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * IX Analysis (82) As noted above, section 126(3) of the Police Act provides that if I consider that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, I should prioritize an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * I am also satisfied that doing so would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute nor prove to be unworkable.

### section-117-reviews/24746-2025-03-24-Adjudicator-Takahashi-Decision.pdf
  * ANALYSIS THE LAW Section 77(3) the Act states that: Subject to subsection (4) any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (m) “neglect of duty”, which is neglecting, without good and sufficient cause to do any of the following: (ii) promptly and diligently do anything that it is one’s duty to do.

### section-117-reviews/25237-2025-02-05-Adjudicator-Ehrcke-Decision.pdf
  * Alleged Misconduct "Misconduct" is defined in section 77(1) of the Police Act as including a disciplinary breach of public trust under section 77(3).

### section-117-reviews/25237-2025-08-25-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * Alleged Misconduct - Neglect of Duty "Misconduct" is defined in section 77(1) of the Police Act as including a disciplinary breach of public trust under section 77(3).

### section-117-reviews/26869-2025-07-24-Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Pursuant to section 117(1) of the Act, having reviewed the allegations and the alleged conduct in its entirety, I consider that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority with respect to Discreditable Conduct allegation #2, that SMC provided a false statement and misled the Saanich Member conducting the impaired driving investigation, is incorrect.
  * The Discipline Authority went on to find SMC conduct would not be likely to bring discredit to the department.
  * The same cannot be said of police officers subject to the strictures of the Police Act and subject to sanction should they commit a disciplinary breach of public trust defined by s.
  * Knowledge that an officer had engaged in conduct of that kind would be likely to bring discredit upon the police department of which the officer is a member.
  * ether an SMC’s conduct would likely bring discredit to the municipal police department, the Discipline Authority said that such an analysis “…must recognize that an Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 4 July 24, 2025 OPCC 2024-26869 SMC’s off-duty conduct is far less likely to impact the integrity or reputation of the police department in the eyes of the public and should be treated accordingly.
  * ” In the Discipline Authority’s view, while a reasonable person in the community may expect that a fully trained constable would understand that misleading another officer at a traffic stop could undermine public trust, that same reasonable person may not assume that an SMC would have the same awareness.
  * OPCC Decision, Section 117 of the Police Act Based on a review of the available evidence, I have a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority is incorrect with respect to allegation #2 regarding Discreditable Conduct and the provision of a false or misleading statement to the Saanich Member.
  * Neal also noted that there was no justification in law that recognized a different standard of conduct between municipal constables and SMCs: I find that as a matter of sound public policy, all members, including SMCs, must be held to a high standard of conduct to preserve public confidence in policing.
  * For these reasons, I am appointing a retired judge to make a decision on Discreditable Conduct allegation #2 regarding the making of a false or misleading statement to the Saanich Member.
  * As explained above, the Discipline Authority found an appearance of misconduct with respect to Discreditable Conduct allegations #1 and #3.

### section-117-reviews/26869-2025-08-08-Adjudicator-Gerow-Decision.pdf
  * In a decision pursuant to section 112 of the Act, the Discipline Authority identified three separate allegations of discreditable conduct pursuant to subsection 77(3)(h) of the Act.
  * 2 Circumstances of the Incident The circumstances giving rise to the allegations of discreditable conduct are set out in the Final Investigation Report (the FIR) and the attached documents and records.
  * 77(1) (1) In this Part, "misconduct" means … (b) conduct that constitutes … (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * line made under this Act; (iii) without lawful excuse, failing to report to a peace officer whose duty it is to receive the report, or to a Crown counsel, any information or evidence, either for or against any prisoner or defendant, that is material to an alleged offence under an enactment of British Columbia or Canada; The allegation of discreditable conduct on the part of the SMC is not enumerated in subsection 77(3)(h).
  * Rather the issue is whether the member knows, or ought to have known, that his or her conduct would be likely to bring discredit on the police department.
  * It is not necessary that the conduct would bring or has brought discredit on the department.
  * It is sufficient that the conduct would be likely to bring discredit to the department.
  * The question of whether an officer providing false or misleading information to another officer when he is the subject of investigation appears to constitute discreditable conduct has been considered in earlier reviews.
  * The same cannot be said of police officers subject to the strictures of the Police Act and subject to sanction should they commit a disciplinary breach of public trust defined by s.
  * Knowledge that an officer had engaged in conduct of that kind would be likely to bring discredit upon the police department of which the officer is a member.
  * Having reviewed the FIR and the attached documents and records, I conclude the evidence appears sufficient to substantiate the allegation of discreditable conduct on the part of the SMC in providing a false or misleading statement to the SPD member.
  * 7 NEXT STEPS I am giving notice pursuant to subsections 117(7) and (8) of the Act as follows: • For the reasons set out, I am of the view that the evidence referenced in the FIR and attachments appears sufficient to substantiate the allegation of discreditable conduct on the part of the SMC by providing a false or misleading statement to the SPD member.

### section-117-reviews/4427_2015_01_13_S117_Notice_of_Decision.pdf
  * 205/98] 55(3) I confirm the characterization of this matter as Public Trust and, pursuant to s.
  * the for gated investi be ndents Respo of the Police Act, I hereby order that the defined disciplinary defaults of Deceit, Neglect of Duty and Discreditable Conduct as by the Police Act Code of Professional Conduct Regulation.
  * In the Matter of Constable and Acting Sergeant Page 10 Prior to the amendment of the Police Act, the Regulation promulgated under the Police Act defined disciplinary defaults and discreditable conduct.
  * conduct that constitutes fi) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or In the Matter of Constable and Acting Sergeant Page 13 (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (2) A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely (a) render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b) discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.

### section-117-reviews/4542_2015_01_13_S117_Notice_of_Decision.pdf
  * s vehicle was not authorized by law Sergeant McEwen recommended that he be found culpable for one count of “Discreditable Conduct.
  * Finally, since the evidence supported the issuing of the by-law ticket, Sergeant McEwen recommended that the count of “Discreditable Conduct” pertaining to that ticket be found to be unsubstantiated.
  * I find then that the allegation that Constable while in the performance or purported performance of his duties conducted himself in a manner that he knew or ought to have known, would bring discredit to the Vancouver Police Department by searching Mr.

### section-117-reviews/4584_2015_01_13_S117_Discipline_Proceeding.pdf
  * Section 77(3)(O(i)(A) now provides as follows: (3) Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (f) deceit, which is any of the following: (i) in the capacity of a member, making or procuring the making of (A) any oral or written statement that, to the member’s knowledge, is false or misleading.
  * 77(3)(h) of the Police Act and as such conducted themselves in a manner that they knew, or ought to have known, (formally would likely bring discredit to the [sic] s.

### section-117-reviews/4584_2015_0_-13_S117_Discipline_Proceeding_Part_2.pdf
  * ty considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective (2) measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the police officer concerned takes precedence over one that seeks to blame and punish, unless the approach that should take precedence is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * tive (3) measures are necessary, the discipline authority must choose the least onerous disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to the police officer concerned unless one or both of the following would be undermined: organizational effectiveness of the municipal police department with which the (a) police officer is employed; (b) public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Minimizing the nature and consequences of deceit pertaining to conduct involving the person or property of a member of the public would adversely affect and tend to undermine public confidence in the integrity of police services on which citizens place so much reliance.

### section-117-reviews/4716_2015_01_13_S117_Notice_of_Decision.pdf
  * The Investigator’s Findings (a) [6] Operation of a Motor Vehicle (The Investigator) was of the view that the fact that (the Member), when off duty, had operated a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was affected by alcohol, appeared to constitute discreditable conduct within the meaning of s.
  * 77 of the Police Act and includes a “disciplinary breach of public trust” as defined by s.
  * (3)(d) “discreditable conduct”, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department, including, without limitation, doing any of the following: (i) acting in a disorderly manner that is prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline in the municipal police department.
  * £ efled (poppa) ajqesuoj p iape eq a, In the Matter of Constable (edited) (a) [161 Page 8 The Driving Allegation It is readily apparent that the operation of a motor vehicle in circumstances which resulted in a 24-hour roadside suspension will only constitute misconduct ii it amounts to discreditable conduct.
  * Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #04-09, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services adopted the following definition of discreditable conduct: The concept of discreditable conduct covers a wide range of potential behaviours.
  * As a result, I find that (The Member) appears to have engaged in discreditable conduct which constituted In the Matter of Constable (edited) Page 9 misconduct when he operated a motor vehicle in circumstances which resulted in the imposition of a 24-hour roadside suspension.
  * The issue is whether his actions constitute either a corrupt practice or discreditable conduct.
  * [28] The real question in this instance is whether the purpose for the display of the police badge as evidenced by the manner of display appears to constitute discreditable conduct.
  * The actions of (The Member) which were undertaken for the purpose of procuring more favourable treatment than would be accorded others appears to me to constitute discreditable conduct.
  * The finding that conduct is not corrupt does not mean it is not discreditable.
  * Piffield, Discipline Authority A prehearing conference was held on September 23w, 2010, at which time the Member accepted responsibility for his actions and agreed to the following disciplinary measures: Allegation 1: Discreditable Conduct (24 hr suspension) Written Reprimand Allegation 2: Discreditable Conduct (displaying badge) Advice to Future Conduct The OPCC reviewed the matter and agreed to the resolution reached at the prehearing conference and concluded the file on September 28th, 2010.

### section-117-reviews/4718_2015_01_13_S117_Notice_of_Decision-1.pdf
  * 77 read as follows: 77 (1) In this Part, “misconduct” means 10 (b) conduct that constitutes (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * ach of public trust, when committed by a member: (a) “abuse of authority”, which is oppressive conduct towards a member of the public, including, without limitation, (ii) in the performance or purported performance, of duties, intentionally or recklessly (A) using unnecessary force on any person, or (4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/5689_2015_01_13_Discipline_Proceeding_Decision.pdf
  * obstruct by attempting to rrom attending to give evidence at the dissuade witness, traffic hearing of ) section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act Member/former member!s reply to allegation: Denial Findings and reasons: and viewing the supplementary After hearing the evidence of Constable documentation he provided, I find that the allegation of Discreditable Conduct is not substantiateU I am satisfied that: statement did not have particulars of 1.

### section-117-reviews/5689_2015_01_13_S117_Notice_of_Decision.pdf
  * The Allegations: The Notice of Appointment of Adjudicator sets forth three counts of Discreditable Conduct: • Count one alleges that Constable intimidated Constable and tried to persuade him not to issue a traffic ticket.

### section-117-reviews/6633_2015_01_13_S117_Notice_of_Decision.pdf
  * that he did, with the intent that it would influence the conduct of Constable in granting him leniency or favourable treatment that would not be afforded a citizen who was not a member of a police department? hi a decision under section 117 of the Police Act handed down on August 11, 2010 Adjudicator Pitfield said: The test in respect of discreditable conduct is objective.

### section-117-reviews/7741_2015_01_13_S117_Notice_of_Decision.pdf
  * Stan Lowe PoLice CompLaint Commissioner Member The Alteged DiscreditabLe Conduct: Two incidents of misconduct under s.
  * This order reLated to the Member’s operation of a motor vehicLe white under the influence of aLcohol, and identified the potential misconduct as “discreditable conduct.
  * On January 18, 2013, the Commissioner amended his original order to include the second “discreditable conduct” atlegation, relating to the Member’s seLf-identification as a poLice officer and request for less onerous enforcement.
  * The Issue: The issue before me is whether the allegation of discreditabLe conduct alleged in Count 2 is substantiated on a balance of probabiLities.
  * 5 What is discreditabte conduct? Section 77(1) of the Potice Act defines misconduct to include a disciplinary breach of pubLic trust.
  * Section 77(3) sets out conduct which constitutes a discipLinary breach of pubtic trust, inctuding (h) ‘discreditabte conduct’, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, wouLd be likeLy to bring discredit on the municipaL police department.
  * PitfieW, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of BC, agreed with the foLlowing definition of discreditabLe conduct articulated in Mancini v.
  * Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #04-09 by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services: The concept of discreditabte conduct covers a wide range of potentiat behaviours.
  * AccordingLy, ConstabLe “Officer #1”s subjective opinion that the Member’s actions did not constitute corruption, pressure, or harassment is not reLevant to an objective determination of whether the Member’s actions were discreditable.
  * 18 AccordingLy, I conclude that the evidence is sufficient to substantiate the allegation of discreditable conduct in relation to Count 2 and requires the taking of discipLinary or corrective measures.

### section-117-reviews/8138_2015_01_13_S117_Notice_of_Decision.pdf
  * or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section (2) A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely (a) render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b) discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.

### section-117-reviews/8522-2018-02-26-Disciplinary-Authoritys-Findings-and-Reasons.pdf
  * ublic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (i) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (29) An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/8522-_2017-06-07_Adjudicator_Neal_Decision.pdf
  * ublic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (I) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/9281_2015_01_13_S117_Notice_of_Decision.pdf
  * AND TO: INSPECTOR INVESTIGATING OFFICER , DISCIPLINE AUTHORITY AND TO: CHIEF CONSTABLE AND TO: MR STAN LOWE, POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER INTRODUCTION I - On 15 August 20141 the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a review of the 22 July 2014 decision of the Discipline Authority (Inspector ), who found that two of three allegations of discreditable conduct made against Constable of the Police Department ( were unsubstantiated, and that a third allegation was substantiated.
  * An Amended Order for Investigation -2- adding a third act of alleged discreditable conduct (Allegation 3) was issued on 15 May2014.
  * Allegation I - Discreditable Conduct It Is alleged that Constable committed the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct as per section 77t31h) of the Police Act by urinating on the floor inside the Atleoation 2— Discrditable Conduct It is alleged that Constable committed the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct as per section 77f31h) of the Police Act by identifying himself as a police officer with the and flashing his badge when approached by security staff.
  * Allegation 3— Discreditable Conduct It is alleged that Constable committed the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct as per section 77(31h) of the Police Act by inappropriately touching two women inside the THE DISCiPLiNE AUTHORITY’S DECISION 6.

### section-117-reviews/Adjudicator-Neal-Decision.pdf
  * ublic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (i) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 8 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * ublic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b)conduct that constitutes (i)an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, 14 delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii)a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.

### section-117-reviews/Adjudicator-Oppal-Decision.pdf
  * In an earlier investigation ordered by, then Commissioner Lowe, of the RCMP , concluded that, "this was a private, domestic argument that on the balance ofprobabilities does not meet the threshold of discreditable conduct".
  * He stated that "In my view, the Discipline Authority did not correctly apply the testfor assessing discreditable conduct pursuant to s.
  * It is as the words of the section state,"conduct that a member knows or ought to know would likely bring discredit on the Police Department whether the officer is on or off duty", (emphasis added).
  * Discreditable Conduct may arise when the officer subjectively knew that his or her actions would bring discredit to the Municipal Police Department.
  * However, there may also be Discreditable Conduct where the officer "ought to know" that his/her actions might bring discredit upon the Municipal Police Department.
  * The second aspect of the statutory definition in the phrase is "would likely bring discredit on the Municipal Police Department".
  * It is not necessary that the conduct would bring, or has brought discredit on the Municipal Police Department.
  * Perhaps, taken individually, these actions may not appear to be discreditable conduct, however, taken cumulatively, they appear to constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Police Act.

### section-117-reviews/Adjudicator-Pendleton-Decision-1.pdf
  * I am mindful of the limitation to the definitions of misconduct in Section 77 found in Section 77(4): 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/Adjudicator-Pendleton-Decision.pdf
  * As well, the evidence suggested that the conduct of Constable would if substantiated constitute misconduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) (discreditable conduct).
  * Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows or ought to know, would likely bring discredit on the police department.
  * s bloody face with his fanny pack and in doing so conducted herself in a manner that she knew or ought to have known would likely bring discredit to the police department.
  * Discreditable conduct which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department contrary to section 77(3)(a)(h) of the Police Act.
  * I am mindful of the limitation to the definitions of misconduct in Section 77 found in Section 77(4): 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * The allegations of misconduct against Constable are that she conducted herself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would likely bring discredit on the police department and that Constable when on duty, intentionally or recklessly damaged property belonging to a member of the public.
  * Sergeant concluded the evidence did not support the allegation of discreditable conduct.
  * bloody face with a fanny pack and therefore there was no way to objectively assess whether such conduct may be discreditable.
  * bloody face then questions arise whether, viewed objectively, such conduct was discreditable and whether Constable intentionally or recklessly damaged Mr.
  * Based on the materials and evidence 24 contained in the report, I find the evidence appears sufficient to substantiate the allegations that Constable conducted herself in a manner that she knew, or ought to have known, would likely bring discredit on the police department and that Constable intentionally or recklessly damaged property belonging to a member of the public.

### section-117-reviews/Adjudicator-Threlfall-Decision.pdf
  * he evidence the Discipline Authority determined that the allegation of abuse of authority for oppressive conduct under section 77(3)(a) had not been substantiated, that the allegation of abuse of authority under 77(3)(a)(iii) (racial discrimination) had not been substantiated, that Constabl “fucking Flavor Flav” comment did not amount to Discreditable Conduct pursuant to s.
  * public trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b)conduct that constitutes 6 (i)an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii)a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * (2) A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely (a)render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b)discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found in subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/Discipline-Authority-Decision-on-Discipline-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * I found that Constable had committed misconduct by neglecting his duty and conducting himself in a manner he knew or ought to have known would be likely to bring discredit to the West Vancouver Police Department.
  * The misconduct alleged was that the member while investigating a theft from his vehicle on May 16, 2018 neglected his duty and conducted himself in a manner he knew or ought to have known would be likely to bring discredit to his police department.
  * The issue in this Discipline Proceeding is whether there is clear, cogent and convincing evidence that proves on a balance of probabilities that Constable neglected his duty and conducted himself in a manner that he knew or ought to know would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police force.
  * submitted that a reasonable member of the public who was fully apprised of the circumstances, which would include knowing that the RCMP would not likely be able to respond to the call quickly enough to recover the property, would not consider Constable ’s actions to be discreditable.
  * I am satisfied that Constable knew or ought to have known that his conduct would be likely to bring discredit on his police department.
  * In my opinion the fact that no one was injured, that some of the stolen property was recovered and that the prosecution was eventually successful does not resolve the issue of whether Constable s conduct was discreditable.
  * Discreditable conduct is established if the member knew or ought to have known his conduct would likely result in discredit to the police force, not whether it actually did or not.
  * I am satisfied, that such conduct would cause a reasonable person in the community to question Constable ’s training and understanding of police practices and procedures, would reflect negatively on his police department and would be likely to bring discredit on the West Vancouver Police Department.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The appropriate outcome should correct and educate the member unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Section 126(3) requires me to give precedence to an approach that seeks to correct and educate unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * I am satisfied having regard to the factors set out in Section 126 that an approach that will correct and educate Constable is workable and will not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/Discipline-Authority-Findings-and-Reasons-2.pdf
  * The 2 allegations, which are set out below, concern, firstly, the member conducting himself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department and, secondly, the member neglecting his duty.
  * On May 28, 2018, the Commissioner ordered an investigation of the conduct of Constable pursuant to section 93(1)(a) and (b)(i) of the Police Act after concluding that the conduct of the member would, if substantiated, constitute misconduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act (discreditable conduct) and section 77(3)(m)(ii) of the Police Act (neglect of duty).
  * “Misconduct” means: 5 (3) Subject to subsection (4), any conduct described in the following paragraphs constitute a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (h) “discreditable conduct”, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Discreditable conduct is defined in the Police Act as follows: (h) “discreditable conduct”, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Adjudicators Pitfield and Allan agreed with the following definition of discreditable conduct set out in Mancini v.
  * Counsel submitted that Constable ’s actions do not amount to discreditable conduct.
  * The public would not be shocked or outraged by the actions of Constable and his conduct would not bring discredit to the West Vancouver Police Department or himself.
  * The issue in this Discipline Proceeding is whether there is clear, cogent and convincing evidence that proves on a balance of probabilities that Constable neglected his duty and conducted himself in a manner that he knew or ought to know would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police force.
  * submitted that a reasonable member of the public who was fully apprised of the circumstances, which would include knowing that the RCMP would not likely be able to respond to the call quickly enough to recover the property, would not consider Constable discreditable.
  * I am satisfied that Constable knew or ought to have known that his conduct would be likely to bring discredit on his police department.
  * In my opinion the fact that no one was injured, that some of the stolen property was recovered and that the prosecution was eventually successful does not resolve the issue of whether Constable ’s conduct was discreditable.
  * Discreditable conduct is established if the member knew or ought to have known his conduct would likely result in discredit to the police force, not whether it actually did or not.
  * I am satisfied, that such conduct would cause a reasonable person in the community to question Constable s training and understanding of police practices and procedures, would reflect negatively on his police department and would be likely to bring discredit on the West Vancouver Police Department.
  * The evidence proves on a balance of probabilities that Constable neglected his duty and conducted himself in a manner he knew or ought to know would be likely to bring discredit to his police department.

### section-117-reviews/Discipline-Authority-Findings-and-Reasons.pdf
  * The allegations of misconduct against Constable concern, firstly, whether the member conducted herself discreditably and, secondly, whether the member intentionally or recklessly damaged property belonging to a member of the public.
  * As well, the evidence suggested that the conduct of Constable would if substantiated constitute misconduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) (discreditable conduct).
  * Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows or ought to know, would likely bring discredit on the police department.
  * son (e) damage to property of others, which is (i) when on duty, or off duty but in uniform, intentionally or recklessly damaging any property belonging to a member of the public 6 (g) discourtesy, which is failing to behave with courtesy due in the circumstances towards a member of the public in the performance of duties as a member (h) discreditable conduct, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * bloody face with his fanny pack and in doing so conducted herself in a manner that she knew or ought to have known would likely bring discredit to the police department.
  * counsel for Constable submitted that the evidence does not prove that her client conducted herself discreditably in her dealings with Mr.
  * The evidence does not prove on a balance of probabilities that Constable acted discreditably nor did she damage property.

### section-117-reviews/Discipline-Authoritys-Decision-on-Discipline-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The appropriate outcome should correct and educate the member unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Minimizing the nature and consequences of deceit pertaining to conduct involving the person or property of a member of the public would adversely affect and tend to undermine public confidence in the integrity of police services on which citizens place so much reliance.
  * Section 126(3) requires me to give precedence to an approach that seeks to correct and educate unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * In my view the larger concern here is whether dismissal is required to preserve public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * 265, the court discussed whether a decision would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * said: Since the concept of disrepute involves some element of community views, the test should be put figuratively in terms of the reasonable person: would the admission of the evidence bring the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the reasonable person, dispassionate and fully apprised of the circumstances of the case.

### section-117-reviews/Findings-of-Discipline-Authority-14770.pdf
  * HORITY [Section 125 (1)(b) Police Act] Police complaint commissioner file number: 2018- 14770 Name of member/former member involved: , Constable # West Vancouver Police Department Date of discipline proceeding: January 20, 2021 In relation to each allegation of misconduct against you, my findings are as follows: Misconduct: Allegation of Discreditable Conduct section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act The alleged discreditable conduct concerns Constable in an RCMP investigation on May 16, 2018.

### section-117-reviews/Findings-of-Discipline-Authority-3.pdf
  * Allegation of Discreditable Conduct section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act The alleged discreditable conduct concerns Constable onducting herself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the police department.

### section-117-reviews/Findings-of-Discipline-Authority-Supplement.pdf
  * Section 77(3)(f)(i)(A): (3) Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitute a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: (f) “deceit”, which is any of the following: (i) in the capacity of a member, making or procuring the making of (A) any oral or written statement that, to the member’s knowledge, is false or misleading.
  * The relevant case law and authorities including Geske and Hamilton Police, OCCPS, 3 July 2003 and Ceyssens “Legal Aspects of Policing” summarize what is necessary to establish a disciplinary breach of public trust involving deceit.

### section-117-reviews/Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment-3.pdf
  * However, Inspector determined that Constable had not committed Discreditable Conduct, finding a reasonable member of the public would agree, should they consider the same set of facts.
  * would had OPCC Decision, Section 117 of the Police Act With respect to the allegation of Discreditable Conduct, Constable told the investigator that when he was speaking with RCMP Constable he asked Constable to message the investigating office via Mobile Data Terminal (MDT).
  * It is my view that the Discipline Authority was incorrect in finding that Constable s conduct did not constitute Discreditable Conduct.
  * With respect to the loaded magazine, I am of the view that Inspector erred by not considering whether Constable s actions constituted Discreditable Conduct.
  * Therefore, in my view, Constable ’s conduct would likely bring discredit to the West Vancouver Police Department.

### section-117-reviews/OPCC-File-No-2017-13587-s-117-Decision-002_Redacted.pdf
  * Abuse of authority by participating in the seizure of vehicle contrary to Section 77(3)(a) I am mindful of the limitation to the definitions of misconduct in Section 77 found in Section 77(4): 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.
  * If his conduct was necessary then his actions do not constitute a disciplinary breach of public trust (Section 77(4)).

### section-117-reviews/Recommended-Procedures-s.117.pdf
  * Misconduct Conduct as defined by Division 2 of Part 11 of the Police Act that constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust when committed by a member.
